On October 8, the AHRMA Board of Trustees met to make final determinations on rules proposals for the 2019 racing season. A summary of the proposals is attached, with the final Board decisions displayed in orange type. The green type is record of the preliminary decisions rendered in July, prior to member feedback.
Please note that underlined text indicates new wording, strike-through words are to be removed from the ’19 Handbook.
Trustees in attendance at the October 8, 2018 meeting were:
Carl Anderson, Kevin Burns, Luke Conner, Fred Guidi, Arthur Kowitz, Louis LeBlanc, Brian Larrabure, Debbie Poole, Rob Poole, Pat Riley, Beno Rodi and Kelly Shane.
David, thank you for weighing-in on the discussion; I still contend the T100 inclusion rules should stand as originally written (plain bearing/no Concentrics), or, anything unit-construction be excluded, and/or a cut-off date be established. When the 5TA/pre ’64 T100 rules were written into the class I personally set about building one up to race in lieu of my ’56 Norton International. After completion the machine was taken-over and, after development, raced with some success by Skip Ortner in Classic Sixties and Sportsman 500, so I’m not that biased on the idea! BSA unit, Royal Enfield twins, Horex, Honda CB72, and many other bikes would then qualify if written as “pre ’63, so would reverting to “non-unit design” resolve things in a way of speaking? All this banter is not to necessarily exclude, but to solidify the rulings on design and type of motorcycle as “purpose-built GP road racers” from what really amounts to “Classic Fifties” as a period of manufacture and development. Perhaps my next project should be a “Daytona 88”.
p.s. kudos to Fred Mork & the “Jawton”!!
Mark, I agree completely. The class was originally intended for pre-unit bikes only, and really should’ve been named Classic Fifties. Four years after the class was introduced, the unit T100 was reluctantly allowed, with many restrictions that kept the bike in line with what would’ve been raced during that period.
This rules creep has resulted in a bike that is essentially 10 years past the intended period. It’s ridiculous. The T100 with the later frame and ball-bearing mains already has four other vintage classes for which it is eligible — add the bump classes, and it can be on track eight times a day! It’s not like there’s no where for it to run.
If a Triumph enthusiast who wants to ride in Classic Sixties feels the early frame is inferior, he can use a Featherbed or a Gold Star frame. If he’s not comfortable with the bushing RH main bearing, build a pre-unit bike (you know, the one that’s supposed to be in the class). There are options that fit within the intended class structure.
I’ve owned and raced both unit and pre-unit 500 Triumphs, and have built several for customers. I have five in my shop at this moment, so it’s not like I dislike them or have any prejudice against them, I just don’t like seeing rules creep that is detrimental to a race class.
(The 1973-’74 TR5T is a T100 variant which has an oil-in-frame chassis, and I believe the line in the Handbook prohibiting OIF frames was intended for Classic Sixties 650.)
Thank you for reading,
The only change to the T100 in Classic 60’s is to allow the later cross member frame and to allow the bearing lower end. The squishband head with 28mm restriction with 28mm carb was retained. The T100 never had an OIF and the rules expressly prohibit the use of the OIF in Classic 60’s. These are hardly Sportsman machines. Personally I could care less if they restricted it to Monobloc or GP carbs but lets also agree that the T100 was being roadraced in the early 60’s and should be represented while also having to compete with replica Manx and Goldstar motorcycles. The same Manx and Goldstar motorcycles run 36mm Amal concentrics (no listed carb restrictions or frame restrictions) and breath a lot more with each stroke than the T100. And yes, those of us who want to race this class care quite a bit.
Are you *sure* the squishband head and 28mm carburetors will be required in 2019?? That was definitely the approved motion in July, but the rules document from October just says “motion to approve” the proposal. I guess we’ll have to wait ’til the new rules are published somewhere.
Re: 10.4.3 – Classic Sixties rules change proposal as accepted: Unfortunately in the AHRMA handbook here is no cut-off date for model year (“1960’s era and earlier”), now no restrictions on unit Triumphs, Amal Concentric carburetttors are permissible (though they were not introduced until 1967), will this allow oil-in-frame models (?), will it hold true for BSA unit twins (?). I always interpreted the class formula to reflect 1951-1962 clubman and GP racing motorcycles. Admittedly grids are small for the class, but I feel letting effectively Sportsman 500 motorcycles in will detract from the spirit of the class and discourage participation of genuine machines. I regret I was not watching the proposal prior to acceptance or I would have voiced my objection previously. See you next year!
Mark, your interpretation of the Classic Sixties rules is correct, and I agree with your opinion that this rule change is detrimental to the class, and will discourage participation by the machines for which the class was originally intended (unit-construction Triumphs were not permitted the first four years that the class existed). In July, the Board’s preliminary decision was to still require the squishband head and 28mm carburetor restriction, but the way this document is written it appears they passed the original proposal of “remove all restrictions”… I *was* watching and *did* voice my objection, but obviously, (almost) no one cares.
I like the big link box. Much more noticeable than a few lines of text with a hyperlink attached.
Thanks Reese! I figured if I had a hard time finding the link, I was probably not the only one!