The late Percy Tait and Slippery Sam was beaten by a Norton

Those were pretty much the days before two-strokes. I like two-stroke races, but putting two-strokes alongside Manx Nortons in races is silly stuff. To me the Lansdowne Series is bliss. In Australia, historic races are based upon year of manufacture, NOT type of motorcycle. So if you race a two-stroke, all the old garbage gets in the way. If you race a four-stroke, you are out-classed. I was still racing regularly when historic racing began in Australia in 1973. I walked away and did not go back until Y2K. I still don't like it much.
 
Last edited:
No, the two strokes were already there as seen in your image of Phil Read on the 250 Yamha V4. If I remember correctly he finished 3rd behind Ago on the titanium framed MV 500/3. I saw Read and Ivy race several times at Mallory Park, mainly at the post TT and the ROTY.
Race organisers can only put on races if and I say if , they can fill the grid up, we have the same problem in the UK, a shortfall of entrants to make a full grid, so that they are forced to combine races with different classes sometimes, a PITA when the race leaders catch up and lap the slower bikes.
 
Last edited:
It is easy to kill-off an historic race class if the class is not designed around engine capacity and type of bike. A friend of mine had a 250cc 1950s Montesa two-stroke which was eligible to race in 350cc period 3 class against the 350 Manx Nortons etc. The Montesa used to win easily. When I pointed out to my friend the difference in racing costs, he then applied for another log book and moved his bike into the next class which was for 1960s bikes. Which I thought was pretty decent of him. He still won races but his wins were more appropriate. One of the things which commonly happens, is the guys cheat on capacity - 'big is better'. So what you get in Period four are big methanol fuelled four cylinder bikes doing point and squirt racing. There are very few two-strokes in Period 5 (1970s) racing, the cost of racing a TZ against big four cylinder bikes is not justified by the type of racing. If I do historic racing, I race in Period 4 (1960s). The front of the field is 1100cc methanol-fuelled CB750s. So it is rare for a 750cc Triumph or Norton to be there. There are a few two-strokes, but I think the guys don't really know how to make them go fast. They should be able to easily beat my Seeley 850, but don't.
 
I love both two-stroke races and the Lansdowne Series and Goodwood Revival. But I think too many problems are created when you race two strokes against -four strokes. Also at Goodwood Revival this year, there were 3 MV-3s racing against the Manx Nortons and G50s. The MVs naturally won easily. In future the outcome of races at the Revival, will be more predictable. So who will bother to race there ?
 
I have been thinking about having another ride in the middle of this year. But the historic rules have changed. Now all oil lines must be permanently secured (no hose clips). My 850 wet-sumps. So I either need to but a valve in the oil line, or change the oil at the beginning of the meeting. So now I am looking to see if there are any club meetings scheduled for Winton Raceway. The idiots who make the rules are idiots. And it does not matter what is said to them, they press on regardless. I know several other guys who would race, but for the silly rules.
 
acotrel said:
It is easy to kill-off an historic race class if the class is not designed around engine capacity and type of bike. A friend of mine had a 250cc 1950s Montesa two-stroke which was eligible to race in 350cc period 3 class against the 350 Manx Nortons etc. The Montesa used to win easily. When I pointed out to my friend the difference in racing costs, he then applied for another log book and moved his bike into the next class which was for 1960s bikes. Which I thought was pretty decent of him. He still won races but his wins were more appropriate. One of the things which commonly happens, is the guys cheat on capacity - 'big is better'. So what you get in Period four are big methanol fuelled four cylinder bikes doing point and squirt racing. There are very few two-strokes in Period 5 (1970s) racing, the cost of racing a TZ against big four cylinder bikes is not justified by the type of racing. If I do historic racing, I race in Period 4 (1960s). The front of the field is 1100cc methanol-fuelled CB750s. So it is rare for a 750cc Triumph or Norton to be there. There are a few two-strokes, but I think the guys don't really know how to make them go fast. They should be able to easily beat my Seeley 850, but don't.
Click to expand...
Two stroke new spares for bikes like the Yamahas Tz series are or have dried up. Reproduction parts are , in some cases 5 times more expensive, for example pistons for the TZ350 were £19 , now £99 last time I looked! The guys who cannt beat you are not world class riders, your 850 Norton will beat a 350 anywhere that has a long hill to climb. A world class rider on a Tz350 will beat a 1970s 500 MV Agusta on most British short circuits, I've seen it done more than once, as likely as not, your bike will be coming home behind the MV.
 
Last edited:
One of the things which is happening with historic racing is a lot of the bikes are actually retros. I would never stop a retro from racing. The best rules are no rules. All that needs to be done is define the race classes by the type of bike and it's engine capacity with only ONE cut-off date. A Paul Smart Replica Ducati should be able to race against the Irving Vincent. A Molnar Manx and a Walmsley G50 are both retros.
 
Anybody who can ride a 500cc short-stroke Triumph twin fast, cannot be all bad. I still suffer nightmares from riding mine. I think a Paton 500 might also be scary. My Seeley 850 never tries to kill me.
 
I used to love Triumphs, but it is like barracking for the underdog. My Seeley 850 is much better than any Triumph or Triton I have ever ridden. The Mk2A 850 is a lovely motor and it loves methanol. When I had Triumphs, the motor was always being pulled apart and fixed. The only true Triumph race bikes were the GP and the race kitted 1953 T100 - both too fragile to beat the Manx.
 
acotrel said:
I used to love Triumphs, but it is like barracking for the underdog. My Seeley 850 is much better than any Triumph or Triton I have ever ridden. The Mk2A 850 is a lovely motor and it loves methanol. When I had Triumphs, the motor was always being pulled apart and fixed. The only true Triumph race bikes were the GP and the race kitted 1953 T100 - both too fragile to beat the Manx.
Click to expand...
It's funny that it took an ex Norton engine tuner, Doug Hele to make the Triumphs win races, first the 500 winning Daytona later the Triumph 3.
 
If you never ride the other guy's bike, you never find out why they are beating you. I only ever rode one 500cc Manx. I could ride it faster than I could ever ride my 500cc Triton,, even though it was slower. In the 50s, if you wanted to be tops, you started with a Manx. A factory-built production racer is always better than something home-brewed, even if it is only a starting point.
 

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
It happened to me: The day I beat Slippery Sam
Replies
1
Views
933
Stephen Hill
S
Back
Top