89 CB1

[cha0s#242]

Problem was with eligibility. Since eligibility forms have been sacked, I don't see why this couldn't be raced. I would not hesitate to sign it up for a race.

[Stan Nicholson]

Francois, Eligibility forms, or lack thereof, have nothing to do with whether a bike has to meet the requirements of our rules to be considered legal. Every year, when you complete the membership renewal form, everyone signs the following statement (bold by me):

I hereby apply for annual membership in the Vintage Road Racing Association (VRRA) and agree to abide by its rules and regulations and fully recognize that motorcycle racing is a dangerous activity and that I will not hold the VRRA responsible for injury or death, however caused.

The relevant section of the Period 4 rules state (again, bold by me):

7f. EXHAUSTS: Must be of a racing style in use during the period. Stainless steel systems allowed. Titanium, carbon fibre and aluminum allowed for "cans" and silencers only. No under seat exiting exhausts on four strokes.

So it has nothing to do with whether we continue to use eligibility forms or, to answer Ashton, whether a bike is considered legal until someone protests it.

Stan

[gotmeacb350]

....and there you have it. The gods have spoken. That settles that.

[cha0s#242]

Stan, I see blatant violations of the rules everytime I take a walk through the paddock, yet these bikes end up racing on track with the VRRA anyways. My point is, we do have rules, but if there is no enforcement, which in this case would only occur only if another member filed a protest and therefore is highly unlikely, then this problem is moot and it shouldn't be used to deter a member from racing with the Club.

I have high respect for Stan and his contribution to the Club, but his post in the present topic is not to be interpreted as an official VRRA ruling and neither is mine, of course. We are just debating the possibility of this bike being on track at a VRRA event, and I still believe it could be possible.

I could see someone protesting if the bike had an illegal modification that had a serious impact on performance but in the case of an underseat exhaust, I'm quite sure nobody in P4F3 will raise that issue.

BTW, I do not encourage people to have bikes that are not in conformity with the rules and my bike was always rigorously conform.

[autofobe]

There does not have to be a protest against a non conforming bike by another member.
Tec can refuse entery to any bike that does not conform.
If you see bike out there that does not conform,it is your duty to point it out or everybody will follow suit
& it will become a free for all.In the spirit of good sportmanship we should be trying to preserve the rules not try to sneek an advantage of any sort.If you beleive a rule to be unfair, we have a process to apply for a change.I think that we along with tec should crack down on some of these bikes so we can all have a level playing field.Just my thoughts.

Brad

[gotmeacb350]

It would have been nice to think I could have snuck the bike in just as grid filler and no one would flag it unless it and it's rider caused problems in the ranks by placing well. The bike's been flagged before so no sense bothering to try getting it in as it is set up now.So what are the proper channels to get it approved with that undertail exhaust and why if there are no performance gains is it a problem? Or is this the point that has to be argued through the proper channels?

[Dewey]

I don't understand. Five bucks worth of pipe, an hour's work and the bike would be legal.

[Rick Yates]

I have to agree with Paul. The rule is in the book. It's been there for years. The bike has already been turned away in it's present state.
I'm not saying I agree with the rule, but why not just change the midpipe and bring the bike out to race?


Rick

[gotmeacb350]

I don't understand. Five bucks worth of pipe, an hour's work and the bike would be legal.

.

I'm looking into as we speak.

[racerdude413]

So what are the proper channels to get it approved with that undertail exhaust and why if there are no performance gains is it a problem? Or is this the point that has to be argued through the proper channels?

The proper channel is to submit a rule change to the tech chair to be voted on, it wouldn't be done in time for 2013 i don't think. Talking about it here will not change anything except get a feel for who might agree with you.

It would have been nice to think I could have snuck the bike in just as grid filler and no one would flag it unless it and it's rider caused problems in the ranks by placing well.

Yeah i have heard that litteraly a hundred times, if we actually agreed to "let it slide", places 6 to 25 of every race would be full of illegal bikes that have nothing to do with vintage racing. it's about a 100$ piece of exhaust for you, but the same agrument has been made for just about every rule, even about bikes that don't even fit inside the year brackets of the VRRA. Just because you don't win doesn't mean you shouldn't follow the rules, you are still beating someone.

Having said that, I think there is a difference with showing up every race with a bike you have been told is illegal and expecting tech to let you race on and on and showing up for the first time in VRRA with an underseat exhaust.

My dad had an underseat exhaust on his hawk, he did 2 races until the tech said "you will not be able to race with this exhaust at the next event"

[cha0s#242]

Just because you don't win doesn't mean you shouldn't follow the rules, you are still beating someone.

But he won't be beating someone because his exhaust pipe is bent in a different way than stock. Although I must agree with everyone, why won't somebody just spend the hour and finally make that bike conform ? It is probably the only case in history where that stupid rule applies.

[Bondo]

It's been there for years. The bike has already been turned away in it's present state.

Yes, the rule has been there for years, but this is the sordid story of HOW it got there.....

When this motorcycle first made it's appearance at a VRRA event (North Bay several years ago), there was no specific rule in the book forbidding underseat exhausts in P4. Stu Pilkington brought the bike to North Bay as a shake down run at the end of the season and with the intention that his daughter Nicole, would race it the following year.

Someone at tech decided that the exhaust was illegal, even though there was nothing specific in the book regarding underseat exhausts and a bunch of us cited several examples of motorcycles in that era that had underseat exhausts. You could even stretch it that some G50 Matchlesses and Manxes had high exhausts alongside the seat, so what's the difference really?

The specific clause magically appeared into the online rulebook after the fact and was called the "Pilkington Rule."

As a result, the club lost Stu (a former VRRA Vice President) as a racing member, his daughter Nicole as a racing member and his wife Darlene used to volunteer with registration.

All this for a CB1 that wouldn't be even marginally competitive in P4F3 if you snuck a supercharger on it.

Just another example of stuff that really shouldn't happen.

[autofobe]

Thanks for the background Steve.This is a good example of forced decisions without the input of the membership that does damage to the club.Hopefully some of these loopholes have been closed.

"All this for a CB1 that wouldn't be even marginally competitive in P4F3 if you snuck a supercharger on it."

About this part though.........I thought I heard this bike still holds the lap record for P4F3 somewhere?

Brad

[racerdude413]

Thanks for the background Steve.This is a good example of forced decisions without the input of the membership that does damage to the club.Hopefully some of these loopholes have been closed.

"All this for a CB1 that wouldn't be even marginally competitive in P4F3 if you snuck a supercharger on it."

About this part though.........I thought I heard this bike still holds the lap record for P4F3 somewhere?

Brad

Peeeeeelease.... i don't think so

Has there been a vote to try to remove this rule since then?

[Dewey]

Thanks Steve....

I knew there had to be more behind this saga. It just didn't make any sense. Now it makes all the sense in the world. I applaud Stu for his convictions.

Another example of good intensions taking a bad turn, seems to happen fairly often around here.
For every action, there is an equal (or greater) reaction.
Here's the word of the day...CONSEQUENCES.

Dom, apparently there was no vote to put the rule in, shouldn't require one to remove it if that was the case.