Jonathan,
Just trying to stir thing up, are we?
The .020 overbore that is allowed on motorcycles is a bone of contention
with the car guys because several have been thrown out of impound because a
bore measured .001 to big and put them out of the upper limit in that class.
The SCTA/BNI has always been very specific on the size of the engine and
stuck to that.
Now if you take that motorcycle and do a minor recondition to 614cc you are
in the next class. Minor reconditioning is defined as taking the stock bore
and allowing a maximum of .020" above that size, period. This was done
because of the number of stock bikes that can not be bored at all before
they become to large for a class.
Now, you can ask for a .060" overbore for car classes and a lot of folks may
agree with you, but just ask one person that was .01 cubic inch over that
was thrown out of impound and it will not fly....
Mike (looking for more rain Thursday to create that fast course that will
allow all legal in size engines to set records, including Keith's)
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Amo <webmaster@landracing.com>
To: land-speed@autox.team.net <land-speed@autox.team.net>
Date: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 5:53 PM
Subject: Allowing Overbore
>Currently the rule for the motorcycle class lets them increase cyclinder
>bore to .020 over for minor block reconditioning, beyond the maximum
>displacement for engine class.
>
>Now this came about for the older vintage guys that parts were not to be
>found anymore, allowing them to minor reconditioning them. and them was
>allowed for all motorcycle classes.
>
>A few years ago when we were running the GPZ 1350 class..... nevermind
>thats a whole new story....
>
>If this is allowed why not use it. who cares about minor reconditioning,
>why not take advantage of the displacement anyway by using the .020
>over. Lets says I have a 598cc bike that puts me in the 650cc class,
>there is an overbore kit that puts me (for example) in the 614cc range,
>why not go one step further and make it a 660cc (for example) within the
>.020 over range. Now that wasnt a minor reconditioning that was a major
>overhaul.
>Is there a rule stating you cannot do that? In the rule book it does not
>say or specify. It just says minor reconditioning? Define Minor
>Reconditioning??????
>And who is to judge what is minor or not? That could be based on
>opinion????
>
>Jonathan
|