It seems that the Motorcycle classes have changed for next year. Did I blink and miss the discussion on the subject. I now have 2 bikes that I can't use........
Amendments made to Classes B and C. Please see this page: http://www.themotorcyclingclub.org.uk/about/classes.htm I hope that answers the question. Andrew
Wot, no twin cylinder non brit manufacture allowed ( BMW twins or whatever)? Old class D may have been not too popular, but where do they now fit in? I note that non British over 401cc and non British twins do not have to do a couple of restarts that British manufactured motorcycles of this size have to do this year in the 'Edinburgh'. Is there something special about British motorcycles, perhaps the nearly rigid suspension , or the liberal use of cast iron in the manufacture? I feel that whilst the riders are often very old and experienced together with their machines, they should not be singled out because of this. John Lees
On the whole the changes look pretty sensible to me.
The old Class D (twins) did not really have enough entries to justify these machines having a class of their own. Shame it has to go but if no-one enters......
I always thought the old Class E with 3 wheelers and outfits together was an incongruous mix. Surely machines should be classed according to their abilities, behaviour or likelihood of climbing a hill. Putting bikes and (three wheeler) cars in the same class therefore was always a bit wierd and the old Class E felt like a "leftovers" class as a result.
To compare like with like (or bike!) seems more logical. As long as the new D and E classes are suitably subscribed this seems like a good move to me.
With regard to separating bikes on capacity (Classes B & C) - I never really understood that one given that the MCC events are not about speed and that there does not appear to be a significant difference between performances across the two classes. Even so - what's so special about 401cc (450cc)? Perhaps a twin shock/pro-link split in the solos might be more appropriate instead?
For family reasons, I've had a couple of years off competing in the MCC events. On balance, these changes to the bike classes will only only speed up my return to the sport.
Doug Sarney
>From: "Classical Gas, For Trials enthusiasts" > >Reply-To: "Classical Gas, For Trials enthusiasts" > >To: "Classical Gas, For Trials enthusiasts" > >Subject: Re: 2005 SSRs >Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:01:46 -0700 >
I'm only the messanger, but ... (i) - The split between MCC Classes B and C at 450cc is definitely correct and will apply, for MCC events, from the 2005 Exeter onwards. Please make sure that you are looking at the very latest Regs on the MCC website (as amended late last night). (ii) - The ACTC will be discussing the motorcycle classes for 2005 at the AGM on Sunday 26th September but I believe that they currently intend to leave split at 401cc. My understanding is that the difference reflects the different types of bikes ridden in the different types of events but, as I said, I'm only the messanger! Andrew
The web regs appear to have the words 'Single Cylinder' deleted for classes B and C if this is the case twins would be allowed ( and why not) within those classes. Problem is, the published regs are the definitive version (or so it says). Capacity may not be a good division, as has been suggested, twin shock, monoshock and pre-unit perhaps. (No British class).
John is technically correct at today's date. I understand that an official correction to the published 2005 SSRs will be included in the MCC October 2004 Newsletter after which the correction will take precedence over the published SSRs. I will then post this correction on the 'Rules' page of the MCC website and that will become the definitive statement. I believe that Exeter entries should be made on the basis of the revisions published on the website. It is just this sort of uncertainty that convinced me to format the 'Rules' page in the way I have so that we all have one place to look for the latest regs including all amendments issued since the printed version. The caveat at the top of the 'Vehicle Classes' page is just to cover any typos I've made in transferring text from the printed version to the website. If someone wants to propose radical changes to the principle of the motorcycle classes, i.e. by suspension rather than engine size, then I suggest that they offer to join the MCC Motorcycle Sub-Committee (via the General Secretary at present) as soon as possible. I hope this answers all the questions raised so far. Andrew
Amendments made to Classes B and C. Please see this page: http://www.themotorcyclingclub.org.uk/about/classes.htm I hope that answers the question. Andrew
ReplyDeleteIs the 450cc limit also a misprint, it used to be 401cc ? Mark W
ReplyDeleteWot, no twin cylinder non brit manufacture allowed ( BMW twins or whatever)? Old class D may have been not too popular, but where do they now fit in? I note that non British over 401cc and non British twins do not have to do a couple of restarts that British manufactured motorcycles of this size have to do this year in the 'Edinburgh'. Is there something special about British motorcycles, perhaps the nearly rigid suspension , or the liberal use of cast iron in the manufacture? I feel that whilst the riders are often very old and experienced together with their machines, they should not be singled out because of this. John Lees
ReplyDeleteYes John, and british machines on standard road tyres have to do all the restarts on the Edinburgh............. Should be fun on Litton.... Mark W
ReplyDeleteI have to say, that would be doing it the hard way! I thought my monster was bad enough but to do it on road tyres!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! John
ReplyDeleteOn the whole the changes look pretty sensible to me.
ReplyDeleteThe old Class D (twins) did not really have enough entries to justify these
machines having a class of their own. Shame it has to go but if no-one
enters......
I always thought the old Class E with 3 wheelers and outfits together was an
incongruous mix. Surely machines should be classed according to their
abilities, behaviour or likelihood of climbing a hill. Putting bikes and
(three wheeler) cars in the same class therefore was always a bit wierd and
the old Class E felt like a "leftovers" class as a result.
To compare like with like (or bike!) seems more logical. As long as the new
D and E classes are suitably subscribed this seems like a good move to me.
With regard to separating bikes on capacity (Classes B & C) - I never really
understood that one given that the MCC events are not about speed and that
there does not appear to be a significant difference between performances
across the two classes. Even so - what's so special about 401cc (450cc)?
Perhaps a twin shock/pro-link split in the solos might be more appropriate
instead?
For family reasons, I've had a couple of years off competing in the MCC
events. On balance, these changes to the bike classes will only only speed
up my return to the sport.
Doug Sarney
>From: "Classical Gas, For Trials enthusiasts"
>
>Reply-To: "Classical Gas, For Trials enthusiasts"
>
>To: "Classical Gas, For Trials enthusiasts"
>
>Subject: Re: 2005 SSRs
>Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:01:46 -0700
>
I'm only the messanger, but ... (i) - The split between MCC Classes B and C at 450cc is definitely correct and will apply, for MCC events, from the 2005 Exeter onwards. Please make sure that you are looking at the very latest Regs on the MCC website (as amended late last night). (ii) - The ACTC will be discussing the motorcycle classes for 2005 at the AGM on Sunday 26th September but I believe that they currently intend to leave split at 401cc. My understanding is that the difference reflects the different types of bikes ridden in the different types of events but, as I said, I'm only the messanger! Andrew
ReplyDeleteThe web regs appear to have the words 'Single Cylinder' deleted for classes B and C if this is the case twins would be allowed ( and why not) within those classes. Problem is, the published regs are the definitive version (or so it says). Capacity may not be a good division, as has been suggested, twin shock, monoshock and pre-unit perhaps. (No British class).
ReplyDeleteJohn is technically correct at today's date. I understand that an official correction to the published 2005 SSRs will be included in the MCC October 2004 Newsletter after which the correction will take precedence over the published SSRs. I will then post this correction on the 'Rules' page of the MCC website and that will become the definitive statement. I believe that Exeter entries should be made on the basis of the revisions published on the website. It is just this sort of uncertainty that convinced me to format the 'Rules' page in the way I have so that we all have one place to look for the latest regs including all amendments issued since the printed version. The caveat at the top of the 'Vehicle Classes' page is just to cover any typos I've made in transferring text from the printed version to the website. If someone wants to propose radical changes to the principle of the motorcycle classes, i.e. by suspension rather than engine size, then I suggest that they offer to join the MCC Motorcycle Sub-Committee (via the General Secretary at present) as soon as possible. I hope this answers all the questions raised so far. Andrew
ReplyDelete