Vintage Road Racing Association

Here's something which should rev up a lotta folks . The use of post period bodywork is becoming a common trend within our club, most notably period 4, but also applies to all classes I would agree that a2005 f4i fairing and seat look better, or at least more current, than the hurricane bodywork which Honda saw fit to install on its first generation cbr 600 f1. I'm not just picking on hondas but all bikes. If you're not sure what your bike looked like when it rolled off the showroom floor, then have a search for its stock appearance before it's many years of morphing into the monster it's become.
If you're asked at tech inspection to comply by the next event, then please do so. Or maybe while you have some time this off season, make it true to its origin . The tech inspectors are here in part to preserve the look of the era.

This one I like.....a lot! lol

pd

Agreed that it is high time the subject was addressed, but how much grace is the Tech Committee going to allow?
A 1967 (Period 1) bike I'm working on for a friend has a full fairing on it, first year of manufacture was 1969, so that would be a Period 2 part. It's similar to the '67 part, but the guy likes the look of the '69 fairing better. I doubt there is any performance advantage with the later fairing, either - the earlier fairing probably does a better job of streamlining, actually.
Never could figure out P3 and P4 fairings on P1 bikes though - and there are a few of them out there.
I get calls frequently regarding race bodywork and if I think the application sounds at all "iffy", I tell the customer to contact the Tech Committee for clarity / a resolution / ruling, but don't know how often - or if ever - it happens.
Keep us all abreast of this topic - we don't need any unhappy club members and I don't need any angry customers.
Thanks for all your hard work.
Pat Cowan,
Pacomotorstuff

Thanks for the questions Pat. This isn't a witch hunt by the tech committee but rather an attempt by the tech inspectors , not the tech committee, to make the bikes look the look. The newer 1969 hondas being allowed into p1 may be a little confusing for all because the bikes didn't exist in 1967. This should allow a 69 fairing to be used. It's about appearance , not performance advantages. What we are trying to do is cut down on the use of strikingly out of period body work. A little like using wave rotors on a p3 super bike . We aren't trying to piss people off, just trying to remind us of where we came from .

The way I see it Greg
The bikes don't have to have the bodywork that was fitted when it rolled off the showroom floor but the period look of the period in which the bike is going to compete
Many of our bikes had no bodywork when new
It's easier to research the look of period bodywork rather than looking for bodywork that may or may not have been fitted to an xs650 for example
As for me
If been racing a p3
Kawi with a p2 Norton half fairing but I've always been a little on the retarded side!!
Steve

I too saw a lot of out-of-period bodywork the last few years. When I was Tech Chair/Pres. I tried to keep it under control but always had a lot of resistance citing "who cares". I did, but was outnumbered. When you let things slide for whatever reasons you will then be faced with the " It's had this bodywork...(or whatever dubiously legal or blatantly illegal part) for years" excuse. One of the things that pissed me off.

The whole raison d'etre of the VRRA is we're supposed to be responsibly representing eras of motorcycle racing history, not just being a vehicle for racing cheaper-old bikes.

Guess I'm truly a dinosaur now. My rant.

Will we be also looking at other blatent rule violations?
I mean obvious stuff, wave rotors, USD forks etc?

I know people hate me for this, but I think it's time to start really enforcing the rules we have.
The excuse of "it's been in the club for years" is not a good enough reason. We have rules so everyone has the same framework to work within.
Pointing out obvious non conformaties should not make us "pricks".
I am in favour of a grace period. 1-2 rounds would seem reasonable to me.
Anyone else care to give a point of view here?

kirbster wrote:Will we be also looking at other blatent rule violations?
I mean obvious stuff, wave rotors, USD forks etc?

I know people hate me for this, but I think it's time to start really enforcing the rules we have.
The excuse of "it's been in the club for years" is not a good enough reason. We have rules so everyone has the same framework to work within.
Pointing out obvious non conformaties should not make us "pricks".
I am in favour of a grace period. 1-2 rounds would seem reasonable to me.
Anyone else care to give a point of view here?

I agree with you completely except the grace period. The club has been announcing this for at least 2 years. Why would we give a grace period when we're 3 months out from the first race.

All of us here KNOW what is considered within period and what is not. If not, ask the tech director.

Any bike that I build, I read the rules thoroughly for the class and then build accordingly. Not build and beg for forgiveness after. Sorry, but we spend so much bloody money on these bikes, a little research is not that difficult to make sure you conform within the rules.

I'm not trying to be a prick, but come on....

kirbster wrote:Will we be also looking at other blatent rule violations?
I mean obvious stuff, wave rotors, USD forks etc?

I know people hate me for this

That's not the reason we hate you Kirby.

kirbster wrote:, but I think it's time to start really enforcing the rules we have.
The excuse of "it's been in the club for years" is not a good enough reason. We have rules so everyone has the same framework to work within.
Pointing out obvious non conformaties should not make us "pricks".
I am in favour of a grace period. 1-2 rounds would seem reasonable to me.
Anyone else care to give a point of view here?

1 or 2 rounds sounds fine to me. There's a month and a half between rounds 1 and 2 this spring...plenty of time to make changes.

LOL!

1 round max.

I've always maintained the Tech Chair should b the most hated guy in the paddock! But in my mind he/she should be revered.

I say deport the illegals! Then build a wall.

ken l wrote:1 round max.

I've always maintained the Tech Chair should b the most hated guy in the paddock! But in my mind he/she should be revered.

I say deport the illegals! Then build a wall.

I can see how that could be is, I can also see the point that some people have "well its been like this for years" and that is always the problem with not keeping with the rules. Those first items become precedents. Once you allow one in the club, is it fair to disallow the next one? Better to stay within the rules. Then you don't have this moral dilemma. The first exceptions always create the crack to drive the wedge into.

My favourite response was someone saying "if you were a nice guy, you wouldn't protest" to which my response is "if you were a nice guy, you would follow the rules".... right?

It's your responsibility as a club member to know and understand the rule book, and when you don't, get the tech chair to make a ruling. It's a simple process really. Its all there, in writing.

And if you think a rule is invalid, then start the process of making a rule change. If it's important to you, put the work in and prove why the rule is not a good one.

in the end you have a better club, because it is regulated according to its rules. The rules that the members and executive and technical committee have approved.

Makes perfect sense to me.