Olie Linsdell dominates Classic TT - on a Paton

Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
9,540
Country flag
'If people don't like these vintage bikes for what they are, then why like them at all.'

Where do you get these silly ideas from, Rohan ? Historic racing is supposed to be about keeping the old racing bikes going. Surely it is permitted to use a few new parts ? We'll even paint them black for people like you.
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
9,540
Country flag
Scitsu tachos and Mk2 Amal carbs on Manx Nortons really irritate me. Some of the idiots have really lost the plot.
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Messages
4,388
Country flag
daveh said:
Seeley920 said:
As for Patons only ever racing against MVs etc, that is rubbish. I remember John Cooper (Matchless) beating Billie Nelson on Fred Hannahs Paton. Fred Stevens also rode it, and again, almost always against Manx's and G50s.
+1

Final standings of riders and machines in the 1970 Grand Prix 500cc World Championship: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Grand ... ing_season

Quite a few British OHC singles in this list as well, and not all down the order.
A huge array of different machines down the field :!:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Grand ... _standings
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2013
Messages
300
Country flag
acotrel said:
Scitsu tachos and Mk2 Amal carbs on Manx Nortons really irritate me. Some of the idiots have really lost the plot.
With all your whingeing and whining it's pretty clear that the idiot who has lost the plot is you!
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
8,216
acotrel said:
'If people don't like these vintage bikes for what they are, then why like them at all.'

Where do you get these silly ideas from, Rohan ? Historic racing is supposed to be about keeping the old racing bikes going. Surely it is permitted to use a few new parts ? We'll even paint them black for people like you.

???
Thats not my quote you have attached to me.

I have no objections to them using ALL new parts.
I've been saying that for donkeys years.
And building bikes like that...

Its you seems to have lost the plot.
And beng....

And as I have said, repeatedly, if folks didn't think they could build a better mousetrap, we'd all still be riding penny farthings.
Evolution never stops...
 
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
431
Country flag
Rohan,
That quote was mine. I think Acotrel pulled it incorrectly.

Either way, I stand by it. Here's my only point to all of historic racing and my personal views and opinion on it:

These old Nortons and other bikes used in historic racing for organizations like AHRMA, are simply that, historic. And what I mean is, that when these bikes were new, they were being raced competitively in their day. Even a number of years after they were new, tuners and privateers continued to develop them and race them competitively in the circuits of the day. At some point, the bikes that we're talking about, stopped being competitive, and were either replaced by newer racing motorcycles, or in some cases, the companies went our of business entirely.

So each new year and with each new competitive line of race bikes being manufactured and raced, the older bikes became obsolete. Fast forward many decades, and these bikes are simply historic, which I think is great, because I love them. But some people continue to develop them as if they were still current racing machines, which they aren't. So to race an old Norton in a HISTORIC racing organization like AHRMA, and continue to develop the machine well past the cut off date, or well past anything that the machine ever was, seems incorrect to me.

As far as new parts, I've nothing against that. If someone was racing for instance and old Dominator or Atlas, and needed to replace pistons and other components, that's fine. These things wear out. So there's no problem in my mind with keeping that old bike running with replacement parts. I just think they should be replacement parts of the era. For instance, carburetors can easily be replaced by brand new Amals, and they'd be correct to the bike. There's no need for flat slide Mikuni carbs etc. It simply isn't appropriate to the age and era of the bike. And even though I'm a purist, in a racing situation, I make room for improvements when it comes to safety. For instance, running a belt drive primary and dry clutch is a safety concern with a Dominator. The stamped steel primaries are well known to leak, so I think that's a safety factor. I think modern tires are also a safety factor. So even though I'm a purist, I'm not a fool, and would certainly concede those topics.

But at some point this development becomes an inaccurate representation of history. Which doesn't line up with racing in a historic organization. The same applies in my mind to replica bikes. And although I personally wouldn't chose to race a replica bike, I have no problem with them. That is, if they are a faithful reproduction of the original, and that it replicates something that actually existed.

There's no doubt in my mind that anyone racing out there, is having a good time. And they earn my respect for that. I simply just don't see how turning a blind eye to the history of these bikes, does anyone any justice. It certainly doesn't portray the bikes in a factual /historical way.

As far as some of the other little details that get brought up, like Scitsu tachs and Japanese levers on British bikes etc, I don't like those either. I wouldn't make a stink of it out loud, but I certainly wouldn't use it on my bike, and I certainly don't like it. But to me, it's not a big enough of a deal to bring notice to. I'm more concerned with the major components be correct originals (frame / motor / brakes / carbs / ignition).

At the end of the day, anyone can do whatever the hell they want with their bikes. And the extremely lax rules of organizations like AHRMA allow it. There's plenty of semi-dishonest people that will bend the rules and get away with whatever they can, and claim that it's in the spirit of racing and being competitive. I don't think that's anything to brag about. The first place trophy on a fake bike that doesn't represent the era, would mean nothing to me. I'd tip my hat to the guy on a bone stock Norton that's been safety wired and came in last place.

I think that anyone that wants to race "competitively" in the true sense of what that means today, should then stop messing around with AHRMA, and go out on a real modern bike and race in a current competitive class. That would be real racing. Or at least real racing for today.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
8,216
wilkey113 said:
So each new year and with each new competitive line of race bikes being manufactured and raced, the older bikes became obsolete. Fast forward many decades, and these bikes are simply historic, which I think is great, because I love them. But some people continue to develop them as if they were still current racing machines, which they aren't. .

Why aren't they current racing machines, and allowed to still be developed ?
Thats how the interest in actually racing them is kept going ?
Otherwise, the race results could be calculated out from the results in 1963.

Some current racing rules and countries certainly do allow them to be developed.
In the UK, where they came from after all, they are highly evolved, and waaay faster than they used to be.
The racing is still fierce and competitive, what more is needed ??

As I said earlier, if folks didn't think they could build a better mouse trap, we'd all still be riding penny farthings...
 
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
431
Country flag
If they were current, then take them out and race against a modern Honda, Yamaha, Aprilia or any other current racing machines. Do that and see what happens. I think you'll find they're very much NOT current.
They're historical. Simple fact.
As far as development, I'm not talking about porting, tuning, balancing, lightening etc. I'm talking about modern go kart electronics and things that never existed back then. I'm also talking about this mixing and matching of parts that never went together. This mentality of "it could have", when in actuality, it never did exist. I think anyone racing a bike should have to bear the burden of proof that such a machine existed.
Bottom line is that it's obviously a difference of opinion. And we should agree to disagree. I'm not here to argue, and I'm not trying to piss anyone off. I simply feel that historic racing is best left to honest machines of the era. That's what I like. And it still holds my interest. I don't need to evolve an old Norton into some modern rendition, in order to keep my interest. That's just not how I feel about these bikes.

I think it's obvious that someone like myself is somewhat in the minority here. Probably seen as some BS purist jerk. And I'm fine with that. Probably an accurate description.
And the majority might think that anything goes. I just wonder what the tolerance is and what the tipping point would be for those people. At what point would you think "that's not an old bike and doesn't represent historical racing?"
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
8,216
Current as in historical racing classes....

Most road bikes will blow historic racers into the weeds these days.
You can buy a trail bike, out of the showroom, with more horsepower than a manx norton.
Let alone for the prewar classes...
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
639
Bernhard, a .040" overbore on a Model 88 makes it about 510cc, the same overbore on a 650 Trumpet adds about once cubic inch. I have no problem with anyone using the oversizes that were always used for the overhaul of engines, .010 through .060 in increments was common and allowed by the AMA back in the day and by vintage organizations lately, that is only common sense.

The production bore and stroke of Norton 500 singles was 79x100mm for almost it's entire production run. The standard short-stroke Manx had 86 X 85.6mm dimensions for it's entire production run. The only 500 Manx Nortons with Bores larger than 86mm were special works machines that were never sold to the public, or they were specials built up by skilled privateers. Most all the Manx Nortons run though were the standard production jobs.

What went wrong in classic racing was that a few millionaires that for some reason thought the point of vintage racing was all about winning and forgot that it was also about remembering, re-creating and preserving history.
During a real GP race in the early 50s, all the Manx Nortons running would have standard bore and strokes except for the handful of true works machines that the actual Norton factory team would bring to the track. In the later 50s and 60s it would be the same thing, 99% of the Manx Nortons out there would be standard production models, with the very rare exception being the odd person who got their hands on an ex-works machine or were running a special built up by the two or three expert tuners capable of doing so well enough not to be a joke.

Norton never ran any Model 88 with any other bore/stroke other than standard, even the works Domiracer, this was because they were all initially developed with an eye towards USA AMA class C racing were they could not compete unless they were production based.

In vintage racing these days, history is ignored for the sake of petty things. Any millionaire can do just about anything they want history be damned. It is not a problem to me unless they represent it to the general public as anything that is historic or vintage, that is simply lying.
So they build a bunch of shit bikes that never existed, which are much, much faster than anything anyone ever had in a race in the 50s or 60s, then they pat each other on the back for a job well done, but what have they done? Nothing really for anything but themselves really.

It doesn't matter if the rules say they can do it, if it is sold to the public as "classic" or "vintage" or "historical" racing, and it is not recreating any historic race or racing machinery, then it is a lie that exists for nothing but to stoke the egos and wet dreams of the few who can afford to dump the cash into them.

I want to go to a vintage motorcycle race and see how vintage bikes to original specifications run against each other so I can see a bit of history, remember the past or experience it.

Watching a millionaire run around a track far ahead of those who can't afford his hardware and the few original spec bikes anyone brings to the track is going to be as boring as watching the millionaire run around the track with one of his millionaire buddies riding some other wet-dream that never existed in any classic era. I could care less what some bored millionaires dream up and pay someone with more skill and brains than themselves to build so they can pat each other on the back and blog about it.

There should be an organization separate from all the vintage race sanctioning bodies that keeps track of vintage events world-wide and awards trophys to the good men who run real vintage or vintage spec machinery. The awards by the sanctioning bodies themselves mean absolutely nothing at all except that someone showed up and didn't fall down. If someone on a standard production Manx or Norton 88 comes in last against a bunch of wet-dreams and non-period competiton, they have come in first-place in my book and get the top prize for giving the public a bit of what they may have actually seen back in the day.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2011
Messages
2,668
Country flag
As Rohan mentioned, bikes are fast and competition can be fierce; it is called racing you know.

Bikes are built and raced in accordance with the prevailing rules - quite simple.
 

Time Warp

.......back to the 70's.
VIP MEMBER
Joined
Dec 3, 2012
Messages
1,996
Country flag
I doubt anyone born much after WWII would get it.

Edit.
I wonder how much you could have picked a Manx Norton up for in the 1970's ?
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
944
Time Warp said:
I doubt anyone born much after WWII would get it.

Edit.
I wonder how much you could have picked a Manx Norton up for in the 1970's ?
Someone many of us knew well here in Ireland bought a Matchless G50 for a few hundred pounds Sterling in the very early 70s. It was largely as it came out of the AMC race shop and has remained so ever since, and his family still has it.
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Messages
4,388
Country flag
Beng,
the point I was trying to make but seems to have gone over a few people’s head is that an engine overbore may be acceptable to some, but some went to the extreme; for example the British sidecar champion during the late 1960s to early 1970s, Chris Vincent was always entered in the race program his combo racer as a 650 BSA, which means that in his race entry form it was a 650cc. Yet the true engine of his “650 BSA “size was 800cc :!: :!: :shock:
It still had the bore X stroke on the crankcases as a standard 650 this is blandest form of cheating to other competioners, the race club and the watching public alike.
I wonder why his engine was never measured :?:
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Messages
4,388
Country flag
Triton Thrasher said:
What was the capacity limit in C Vincent's races?

Wish I still had the race programs so I cannot remember really it might have been up to 1000cc since there was one or two Vincent’s.
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
9,540
Country flag
There is one of those old racing 650cc BSA sidecars here in Victoria. It was imported from the UK in its current form, and is very original and genuine. For what it is, it is quite quick. It just looks like another dirty old sidecar, however beauty must be in the eye of the beholder. It is a bike that both an old racing rival and myself have noticed and commented on to each other. BSAs were never something that I took an interest in, in the old days - but this bike is pretty good. Not often that you see something so genuine these days.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
8,216
Bernhard said:
the British sidecar champion during the late 1960s to early 1970s, Chris Vincent was always entered in the race program his combo racer as a 650 BSA, which means that in his race entry form it was a 650cc. Yet the true engine of his “650 BSA “size was 800cc :!: :!: :shock:
It still had the bore X stroke on the crankcases as a standard 650 this is blandest form of cheating to other competioners, the race club and the watching public alike.
I wonder why his engine was never measured :?:
Wasn't there a famout 'incident' where Chis Vincent put his hand up and admitted he'd just won a 500cc race with his 650 outfit.
(He also had a 500cc outfit).
The win was taken away from him, and awarded to the true winner.

If he was well under the capacity limit with his 650cc in that class for it, they wouldn't measure his engine, would they...
 
Top