WERA Vintage 2006

Basically we race vintage bikes we are passionate about riding/racing.. I have yet to beat Tim on his V-2 Triumph 500 on My F-500 Rd 400, no reason other than i just don't ride it hard enough.. His 500 is V2 legal, what chance do I have dropping 150cc's to him? I have yet to run a lap as fast as Buff on his CB350 at Roebling, Unless I can make a significant immediate improvement in my riding skills this is not a move that insures an improved finish for me. I am asking for changes that will allow me (and possibly others) to run a bike that I WANT to build and ride..

I can make a competitive argument for all of the rule change proposals I have made... I have limited my contribution to a class I am interested in running. Anyone can contribute, what class WILL you run, what changes will/would be required to make it happen? what changes are logical and are supported on a competitive basis? how can / will this help to improve participation?

 

Re: Re: Re: more.......

Well once again we disagree because things are no better now . I just think chubby huggs has his hands full with modern stuff and not the time for us to help grow. maybe he could make you the vintage main man Bob.:up:

 

You must compair bikes and not riders.

 

As Keith Martin once said, ' You don't performance index riders; you performance index machines.':up:

 

This is a legitimate request. ^

Also, keep pre-1996 250cc GP bikes legal in V7MW. The 600cc in line 4 cyl 4 strokes can be built to superbike specs. Getting over 100 HP out of one is not a problem. a 250 GP bike is good for about 80 HP. In the end, the bikes are close enough in performance where it comes down to the rider.

 

yea I got that a long time ago.. your statement redundantly proves my point, think about it.... could you or Tritom please tell me where I ever advocated rider indexing? I was pointing to the fact that for the most part people race the bikes they are passionate about..

It was a self effacing comment, I have not beat you on my 400, let alone on a 250... now If was asking to have my 400 admitted to V1 your point would be valid...... an RD250 is Legal in V-2 now, I believe the other suggestions are valid based on the bikes alone.

People don't necessarily choose a class because it is "easy" to win.... not that any class is "easy" to win... and I was not comparing riders....

Thanks for your vote of confidence, I am not aware this is a position in WERA and if it does become one there is a long line of deserving and more capable people in front of me!

I almost included a "this is not a WERA Vintage bashing" thread but thought that the opening statement would be enough to make this obvious.. was I wrong?

 

re: V7MW and other indexing

Dennis had a point...the up-through 97 ZX-6R _and_ F3's should be allowed (sorry I forgot the Kwakkers Dennis!) Also, in V7HW, I'd think that all ZX-7R's might be ok to allow as well. As far as I can tell, there is no difference at all between a 2002 ZX-7 and a 97 ZX-7 ...that, and the 97's aren't really significantly different from the 94's.

I know that the 'all ZX-7's thing might be pushing it, but anyway...

 

I appreciate the support, but I dunno about the "it's the rider" thing. the same guy on an F3 v. the TZ, the F3 will be humiliated every time. The TZ will accelerate harder, have a higher top speed, and carry more corner speed...it should be no contest. The idea that you can build a superbike 600, while true, seems unlikely. From the people I've met racing the class, it seems that most are happy to race whatever they can get to the track...if they wanted to build a $3,000 motor they'd race the modern classes. I might be way off here...just my impression.

That said, I haven't actually raced in this class, so I'm not trying to start an argument, but a 95 TZ v. even a nice F3 being parity seems like a bit of a stretch to me. Thoughts?

 

Yeah,you can waste all kinda time and mega-money trying to get 100 Hp and when its all said and done if your at or above that mark you would be lucky not to mention you wouldnt get 60,000 miles out of it like Stick has somehow.(WOW).IMO its called power to weight.Take a TZ,a purpose built GP bike thats 80+Hp and weighs 230pds.and compare it to a 90-92HP 400pd.bike.You do the math.




I went to Barber last weekend and watched a kid slaughter the field on a new 125.Running 37's on a new Aprilla.The same Kid had a new Aprilla 250 that was supposedly 109HP but he didnt run off and leave them in the 250 race.There were all makes and even several 2005 TZ's,but the guy that maintained about a 3sec. gap behind the kid was on a 91 TZ250.They were running 33's and 34's I believe.Quite impressive.These old street sleds can not carry that kind of corner speed,not even close.There is a reason they are not allowed in the 600 class not to mention the 750,s which they can only run Superbike.Just my .02

 

Re: Re: more.......

 

:down: To rolling the cutoff years. Hasn't worked before, shouldn't go down that road.

So your telling me that F2's are in short supply? Doubt that...

Vintage is advanced membership, It would be nice if we had a class for every old bike someone owned but that doesn't work. If some one wants to race V7 MW that bad there are loads of legal bikes to be had cheap.

:down: To the TZ in V7MW, bad, bad idea. And yes, every 2 stroke racer would love that, that because they would have a big advantage for the same reasons someone else posted.

 

Rolling the years in V-7

When was the last time it was tried in V7 ?
I think that it would be good to add the post 95 bikes to the V7 grids. it would improve the grids even more.
They already have classes for every old bike that someone owned . its V-1-2-3-4
an all the Formula vintage classes. Even with all those classes..there are still only 1 or 2 bikes on the grid.

 

Totally disagree. When 250 GP's were allowed into Heavyweight Twins, allot of the guys bitched about that for the same reasons posted on this thread. A pre-96 GP bike hasn't really been dominant in V7 MW and a more modern GP bike has yet to dominate Heavyweight Twins. Yea, I know about Lance winning the championship on a TZ a few years ago. The class was in it's beginning, attendance was lower, and Lance is a really good rider on a properly set-up bike.

To run a GP bike takes alot of dedication regarding maintenance, bike set up, and rider ability. It's not as easy as buying an F3, putting a race pipe, jet kit, and good suspension on and hitting the starter button and roll on out to the track. The F3 is way more forgiving.

On another note, if I was allowed to run my RZ in V7MW, I would be right near the top of the class if you compare lap times. My RZ is way older and slower than a 95 F3. So, how do you explain that?

 

What?!

If you are trying to put like performance bikes together in a class to keep it competative, just look at the performances of a typical bike with typical rider.

The amount of effort to maintain a bike, or initial cost should not even be a factor. Those are factors people should consider when they chose their racebike............not those deceiding what bikes are equally competative.

A pre90 TZ250 races in V6HW, under current rules.

Almost all the V6HW run in V7HW also..........why not the 95 TZ250?

I know this is not a big issue, I have only seen 2 TZ250's this season..........but from the seat of my bike it didn't seem like a fair fight.

I guess this is why a rule ADVISORY committee does not work..........everyone has their own preferences..........the great two-stroke / four-stroke debate continues.

 

melch,

that kid's name is garrett carter. he is stu carter's son (races with us from time to time on his summerfeld manx). garrett is a rising star/young gun currently racing in spain and in the u.s.!

the bike is a factory aprilia. it is a weapon of mass destruction.

he is an awesome kid with quite a bright future.

tex

 

Will do...

RE: rolling cutoff...

Umm...nobody said anything about a rolling cutoff. THe thing that is suggested is to allow other years of a couple specific models because there is no compelling reason not to...unless there is a reason that a 96 F3 should not be legal in a class that a 95 F3 is...? It's the same bike.

 

Dave:

The only difference I can think about is............it's not as old, and therefore not as many miles on the motor.............slightly more reliable............I don't know.

I have no problems with 95, 96 & 97 ZX6R's all included.........the parts are all interchangeable, and with the exception of the date stamp on the frame........no way to distinguish between them.

 

In case you're wondering, there is a reason I'm chiming in on this...