Good question, Gary. I'd like to know the answer, too.
The SCTA rules for partial streamlined/ modified bike have become so friggin
conservative that some sportbikes with STOCK bodywork can't pass (like Jon
W.'s big Kawi at World Finals last year).
How does that make sense????
Russ, #1226B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-land-speed@autox.team.net
[mailto:owner-land-speed@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of gary baker
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 1:47 AM
To: land-speed@autox.team.net
Subject: rule changes
G'day
Im just back from a DLRA meeting , as you may know we use the SCTA rules in
full with a few exceptions and a few added Aussie rules I am tring to have
the rules for partial streamlineing for motorcycles reviewed/ changed to
allow the streamlinging at the rear of sit on m/c's to extend beyond the
rear of the tyre and to encompass the enclosure of the rear wheel and tyre
as well , I believe this change would allow for greater speeds with less HP
in this type of vehicle , has anyone canvassed this sort of change over
there ? and if so why has it not been successful ? why I ask is that the
commitee in Aus appears to follow the rulings of the SCTA and are
infulenced by the SCTA can anyone put forward a reason why this sort of
change should be rejected ? I have some pictures of land speed attempts made
by NSU in the 50"s the 500cc NSU was the first bike to exceed 200mph with a
relativily small amount of HP but the aerodynamics were excellent ,why was
this type of streamlinging dissallowed ??
Gary
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|