Yes, you will have to fill in the hole, a little bit of creative fibergalssing should do it based on your description. I don't expect the belly pan thing to die down anytime soon
Looking through the rulebook. Per D Super and LW Twins rules, it seems kinda odd that, in a class where SV's are allowed stock you allow an air-cooled 883 twin but in LW Twins (with the SV's turned loose), you only go up to 750 on the air-cooled twins. Reason?? I've seen a couple of those hybrid 900ss ducs show up with the 916 cranks (displacing down to about 870). You'd think this might be an attractive alternative versus the built SV's (though I have misgivings that *anthing* is going to work against the truly built ones..........)
It's just an oversight thing mostly. That and you have to remember that the 883 limit really only allows some of the slower Ducati 750's and the Harley (which is really a non issue). If someone really wanted to race a stock displacement 883 in LW Twins, we'd performance index it in, until now no one has asked. As for the 870's, we'd have to take a look at one in action (I've seen them but didn't pay enough attention to remmeber how well they run) and go from there. The 75occ limit was an arbitrary number we picked as the dividing line. It is not an everlasting absolute limit for the class but for now it works just fine.
Gotta get my 2 cents worth in about belly pans. First and foremost, I believe that a belly pan requirement is a welcome addition to the rule book. However, the implementation of this rule is flawed. I became aware of this new requirement via Steve Long at Speedwerks who was following the banter in this forum. Later, I read it here myself and this information is included in the on-line rule book. Having said that, I am concerned with our racing friends that do not have access to the information superhighway. They may not become aware of a belly pan requirement until they receive their Y2K WERA rulebook. Then they will have to really scramble to try to reach compliance. In my opinion, WERA has created an undue hardship simply because of poor planning. WERA has basically stated that they want all racers to affix a part(in a safe and workmanlike manner) to their race bikes even though they are fully aware that in many cases (most bikes over 5 years old), no one manufactures this part. But the real kicker is that WERA opted to make it mandatory at the opening of the season in spite of the fact that many of the racers will not be made aware of the requirement until their new rulebook arives. A much more thoughtful approach would be to make this rule mandatory by mid season or by the GNF. If implemented in this fashion, all the racers could "compare notes" at the track to get some ideas of how to fabricate a belly pan if one is not available. Better yet, as the season progressed, perhaps an aftermarket manufacturer would realize the demand and support this niche market. Again, I fully endorse this new rule, just not the implementation thereof. I truly hope that WERA does not intend to make it common practice to change/add rules in this fashion in the future.
Those who read last years rule boook I think would have seen the impending rule, as I believe it was warned of there. Might be wrong, but I somehow knew about this rule last year, and I think it was from the rule book.
Hate to disagree with you sidman but it seems to me that it was listed in last years rule book as being optional (but recommended) for '99 and mandatory for '00. Might be a problem for the guys who take race school on friday and want to race on sunday but I gotta believe anyone who raced in '99 has known this requirement for the past year - I certainly remember it being stated in more than 1 riders meetings....... What concerns me more is how strict WERA will be on the "5 quarts" part of the rule. I *think* the one I made will hold 5 qts but I ain't gonna bet the house on it. Does "close" count Sean? (Particularly on a 2-stroke w/less than 1 qt in it.....)
Page 28, letter z, 1999 WERA Rulebook - "It is suggested that all machines have a lower fairing capable of containing 5 quarts of liquid. While this is not a requirement for 1999 it will be mandatory on all machines in 2000 - this includes all vintage machinery and all machines not originally equipped with a lower fairing from the factory. Any material may be used if no lower fairing was available as a stock item - if one was available then stock material or fiberglass must be used." It was in the rulebook, it was mentioned in the riders meeting, it was a semi hot topic of conversation at the GNF (til all talk was rained out). If it is a surprise to anyone who was a memeber in 99 it's their own fault - we provide the information and cannot control whether or not people bother to read it. Okay, now that I'm done playing hardass, we will not, I repeat not, keep anyone from racing who does not have a belly pan during the first part of the season. WERA is here to put on races and help those who want to get on the racetrack, do so. We will work with everyone to come into complaince as much as we can. However, if after a few weekends of being reminded to get a belly pan on your bike you keep "forgetting", we will be much less pleasant to deal with. The 5qt portion of the rule is going to be a basic guideline. We will enforce it to the letter on the modern machines that contain that much oil. It will be less firmly enforced on the other machines - I expect to revise the rule to be more size based later this season as we get more facts and figures on the machines out there. For now though, we figure 5 qts. will get people to cover the entire bottom of the motor and wrap it up the sides of the bike enough to do the job. Sean
What a bunch of whiners. I made a belly pan out of sheet metal which fit under 95 ZX-6R bodywork for endurance. It held more than five quarts and cost about five bucks. More important at Putnam in 98 we had an oil line which developed a leak and got black flagged for smoking. There was about a half a quart of oil in the pan instead of on my back tire, and no one else had eat asphalt due to our mechanical. Everyone jokes about the turkey baster pan but a friend used basically that for a Triumph Speed Triple which had no bodywork to run in the AMA thunderbike class. It looked a little cheesy but since when have they been awarding points for looks on a race bike?
Sean Thanx for the clarification concerning the enforcement of the belly pan rule. My point regarding many individual's ignorance of this rule is validated in many posts before mine. Just recently, these posts would include those on 1/5, 1/9, and two on 1/10. Obviously, these are not the only individuals that are less than 100% informed of WERA's rule change so I stand by my previous statement that many racers will become aware of this new requirement upon receipt of the 2000 rule book (regardless of whether this rule has been pending). Again, my concern is for those who will have to fabricate their belly pan. I would rather give them a chance to design and construct a safety enhancing belly pan(by copying those that are deemed compliant)as to see them in the tech line with Tupperware lined with Tampons bungied onto the bottom of their motor, desperately trying to reach compliance. However, in light of your statements regarding the implementation and enforcement of this rule, I respectfully withdraw my statement concerning WERA applying undue hardship to the racers who will not have an aftermarket to persue to reach compliance. I believe that WERA should implement and enforce this rule in the spirit in which you state in your last post regarding this issue. Sincerely The Whiner
Sidman, <soapbox> Your point doesn't hold water (or oil ) - the announcement of the rule was in *last year's* rule book. If they didn't read that book, why would they read the 2000 one? These folks are the ones who are going to show up at the track opening weekend saying, "What bellypan rule?". If they don't know about the rule, they didn't read last year's rule book, or attend any riders meetings during the last half of the season, or talk to anyone else at the track that was bickering/argueing/commenting about it. Sounds to me like those people weren't paying a whole lot of attention when they should have been. </soapbox> - Brian
I'm bringing my EX and RD belly pans and all. I've done the best I can with them at this point so I'm not really gonna worry about this subject anymore. I would like to think that if WERA has a problem with my belly pans and would like me to improve them that they will not turn me towards home the first race of the season. I think as long as I'm makking a consious effort to get within regs at the first part of the season WERA/Shawn won't have a problem with that.
I'm all for compatability but keep in mind that since we were running SS classes before the AMA did and long before CCS existed - why didn't everyone complain to them and tell them to change their rules back to what they were originally? Keeping that in mind it turns right back to "the AMA and CCS changed to this rule so WERA should too"... Seeing as how it doesn't make a difference one way or the toher - why did they change in the first place? It's another rule that makes no sense in a class that is supposed to be as close to stock as possible with just safety related mods... Now that I have vented about us being there and doing that first and those other class stealing interlopers changing things , we probably will change this soon but I can't give you a definite date just yet.
I take it everyone liked the new ruling in AMA. We love to have choices and when we are limited thats when we start bitching.So as far as the ruling we should have a new ruling to be able to run the superbike seat, no performance gain , we are kept at the same height as the stock seat, so no performance gain. Let the new ruling go into effect!!!!!!!!! Rem: You can do it Sean!!
