Come on RAIN....
I understand what Dave is saying here... and agree that the cranks are
expensive.... hell my motor is down on Cubes because I want the ability to
bore it later... I do wish the class breaks were a bit different.... So
logical boring of stock equipment would be easier....
I will NEVER run an Illegal Motor anywhere... Ain't much fun bragging about
something you had to cheat your friends to get... That is just worthless in
my opinion.... or pure sorry...
I think what Dave was saying was in interest of reasonably Priced
competition in the Future Rules decisions we might oughta look at where the
Real Breaks are in Actual Motors avalible to the Racing public and Taylor
our rules to them.... like the 308 limit to D.... which allows a .060 over
bore.... on a stock block rather then having to chase down something that
could go 020.... which is what would be required on a 3" crank and 4"
bore.... That was why I opted for the shorter stroke cranks and the bigger
bores....( that and We could stuff a bunch of Valve in the bigger bore )
Keith ( okay I am going to be quiet for the next 8 hrs...its bed time)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Manghelli" <mmanghel@hughes.net>
To: "Jonathan Amo" <webmaster@landracing.com>; <land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: Allowing Overbore
> Jonathan,
>
> Just trying to stir thing up, are we?
>
> The .020 overbore that is allowed on motorcycles is a bone of contention
> with the car guys because several have been thrown out of impound because
a
> bore measured .001 to big and put them out of the upper limit in that
class.
> The SCTA/BNI has always been very specific on the size of the engine and
> stuck to that.
>
> Now if you take that motorcycle and do a minor recondition to 614cc you
are
> in the next class. Minor reconditioning is defined as taking the stock
bore
> and allowing a maximum of .020" above that size, period. This was done
> because of the number of stock bikes that can not be bored at all before
> they become to large for a class.
>
> Now, you can ask for a .060" overbore for car classes and a lot of folks
may
> agree with you, but just ask one person that was .01 cubic inch over that
> was thrown out of impound and it will not fly....
>
> Mike (looking for more rain Thursday to create that fast course that will
> allow all legal in size engines to set records, including Keith's)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Amo <webmaster@landracing.com>
> To: land-speed@autox.team.net <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> Date: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 5:53 PM
> Subject: Allowing Overbore
>
>
> >Currently the rule for the motorcycle class lets them increase cyclinder
> >bore to .020 over for minor block reconditioning, beyond the maximum
> >displacement for engine class.
> >
> >Now this came about for the older vintage guys that parts were not to be
> >found anymore, allowing them to minor reconditioning them. and them was
> >allowed for all motorcycle classes.
> >
> >A few years ago when we were running the GPZ 1350 class..... nevermind
> >thats a whole new story....
> >
> >If this is allowed why not use it. who cares about minor reconditioning,
> >why not take advantage of the displacement anyway by using the .020
> >over. Lets says I have a 598cc bike that puts me in the 650cc class,
> >there is an overbore kit that puts me (for example) in the 614cc range,
> >why not go one step further and make it a 660cc (for example) within the
> >.020 over range. Now that wasnt a minor reconditioning that was a major
> >overhaul.
> >Is there a rule stating you cannot do that? In the rule book it does not
> >say or specify. It just says minor reconditioning? Define Minor
> >Reconditioning??????
> >And who is to judge what is minor or not? That could be based on
> >opinion????
> >
> >Jonathan
|