Vintage Road Racing Association

The revised rulebook is now posted on the web site under Forms. Changes from the 2023 version are listed on page 3. Parts A and B were ready by February. Part C changes including handicaps were the cause of the delay.

I'm a little confused here, were the technical rules not frozen by a vote years ago with only the possibility of being unfrozen by a vote?
How was a rule change done in period 3?

I built a period 3 bike using the correct period gear, and now I see that a superior remote reservoir master cylinder is allowed. I paid extra money to purchase a standard master, even though I had remote masters in stock.

How did this rule change go through?

Per AGM minutes posted on our website ;

"Freeze Class Rules: Discussed and motion for it passed. As of January 2019, the rule book is frozen for the time being."

It was my understanding that no class rules were to be changed unless there became a safety concern or availability concern.

Also, even had if our rule book was not frozen our constitution states the following for rule changes;

Section 28 sub-sections D through F

(d) receive suggested rule changes from the
membership up to the deadline date, clarify the intent
of the proposal, discuss proposals in committee,
provide a recommendation for each proposal and
produce a clear and concise rule change proposal.
(e) arrange with the Returning Officer for a secret
ballot for rule changes
(f) include with each rule change proposal to be
voted, the supporting documentation submitted with
the rule change, the Technical Committee’s
recommendations and rationale and the Executive’s
recommendations.

I only see the following in the AGM minutes ;

"2024 rule changes: Quick shifters allowed in Period 5 (upshift only). Carbon fibre wheels not allowed in any class. Comment: these rule change proposals were posted on the club forum last April, but only five members commented before AGM."

I do not see any formal rule change request for Period 3 brakes.

I find it impossible to believe that the Tech committee would vote in favour
of a change to radial master cylinders for our pre 1982 class.
I also think it extremely unlikely it would have passed a membership vote.

MGill wrote:I find it impossible to believe that the Tech committee would vote in favour
of a change to radial master cylinders for our pre 1982 class.
I also think it extremely unlikely it would have passed a membership vote.

Hi Matt, the change does not allow Radial masters. That portion of the change (clarification) I actually agree with, it further clarifies that they are not permitted and clarifications are permitted even with the rules frozen.

What I don't agree with is allowing standard remote reservoirs in Period 3. It should state "rear only".
I do not know of any production motorcycles that used a remote reservoir before even the early 90s.

That said, if there is no performance advantage of a remote reservoir, why after their introduction did just about every sport bike go to using one?

The question was raised late last year as to whether remote master cylinders can be used in P3. Axial master cylinders with remote reservoirs have been fitted to some P3 bikes over the years. I went back through the tech committee forum and emails and found no clarifications for or against.

The P2 and P2 MWP rules state that “Front master cylinders shall have the reservoir and cylinder in the same casting.” This statement is not in P3 and later rules. The lack of this statement was interpreted to allow remote reservoirs on axial master cylinders. Remote reservoirs are allowed for rear brakes and mounting a reservoir remotely has no effect on performance.

Remote reservoirs were not factory made items in P3 but a fairly easy change if the reservoir mounted on the master cylinder was plastic as many were. Searching superbike racing from 80-82 shows a remote reservoir on Wes Cooley's 1000. Once fairings became the norm it is very hard to get a clear view of the front brake master cylinder. The CMRC allows remote reservoirs on 350 and 500GP bikes built before 1981.

The Tech Committee reviewed this clarification and voted to leave as is; five agreed, one undecided, and two abstained.