Completely Unfaired class

Rob - what do you mean 'only 1 or 2 mph'?! That's the difference between a sprint finish with someone and lapping them! How much lighter would you have to make your bike to have the same effect?

Further to my previous post suggesting practical nose+tail faired bikes be allowed to compete in a semi-faired class, I suggest calling the nose+tail faired class 'Street', after US practice.

The CdA of both a Street Class bike and a tail-faired low racer would be between 0.14 m2 and 0.20 m2 (Low racer: Cd = 0.55 - 0.6, A = 0.25 - 0.33 m2 - Street Class: Cd = 0.4 - 0.5, A = 0.35 - 0.4 m2), although the street class bike would be about 3.5 kg heavier.

I suggest an addition to Alan's Sports Class Rules as follows:

1. Minimum seat height of 350 mm.

2. Minimum of 30 degrees of unrestricted steering lock in both directions.

3. Any tail fairing must be load-carrying

4. Viewed from the side, the rider's torso forward of the centreline, head, arms (excluding hands) and legs above the knee must not be obscured by bodywork. Transparent bodywork will be considered opaque.

5. No part of the bodywork shall be higher than the rider's nose.

6. The rider shall be able to mount and dismount and put his feet on the ground without any part of the bodywork being removed, rotated, translated or flexed.

7. The bike shall be practical and legal for road use in the UK.

These rules would promote the development of fast, practical road bikes and encourage competitors to add streamlining rather than, in the case of Mike's class, remove it. Surely this is more what we are about as a club.

So to clarify: There would be just 2 racing classes: Unrestricted and Semi-Faired. To compete in the Semi-faired Class you would either opt for the current 'Unfaired' Class rules or the Street Class rules.

I should reiterate that if it were down to me we'd have just one racing class - Unrestricted. But I appreciate this is a bit radical for most people. However, if you look at John Olson's photos of races from before we had classes you'll see many more fully faired bikes than you do now...

GeoffBird wrote: Rob - what do you mean 'only 1 or 2 mph'?! That's the difference between a sprint finish with someone and lapping them! How much lighter would you have to make your bike to have the same effect?

Just lost my last attempt to reply, so will try again ...

Geoff, I disagree. I can keep up with someone 1 or 2 mph faster than me by (a) taking better lines (Mike and I at Hayes last year), or (b) by judicious use of slipstreaming (Paul and I at Preston this year). Others do it, to - Dave G past me on the line at Castle Coomb after sitting behind me for the entire race, and freely stated that there was no way he could keep up with me any other way.

It's not all about the bike, even in HPV circles ....

As to changing all the classes, particularly into only two, why ?! We've got classes that cover most bikes sensibly, with close competition possible at all levels. The proposed new class is covered well enough by the sports rules already, and I also don't think that going to only two helps anyone either.

Rob G wrote: Geoff, I disagree. I can keep up with someone 1 or 2 mph faster than me by (a) taking better lines (Mike and I at Hayes last year)

Yes agreed, but you can still have that 1 or 2 miles and hour on top of those gains made by better lines

Rob (again) wrote: or (b) by judicious use of slipstreaming (Paul and I at Preston this year).

One consequence of having better streamlining is that the gains are not so great haveing a tow from someone, but, perhaps more importantly they make the person behind you have less of a tow.

GeoffBird wrote: If we are going to have a partially-faired class then why not allow bikes with a nosecone and tailbox - they're nowhere near as fast as a fully-faired bike, they are probably no quicker than a good tail-faired low racer and they are practical road bikes. It would also mean that you could make your uncompetitive Kingcycle, Ross or Hurricane competitive by adding a nosecone (and make it a better road bike at the same time). Consequently we could dispense with the Sports Class!

Yes, this makes sense to me; the reason that my Kingcycle does not currently boast a nosecone is that putting one on would make it ineligible for Sports class racing.

Given the relatively small number of people who race HPVs (of any description) in Britain, I sympathise with a desire to avoid a proliferation of classes. But I don't think having only an Unrestricted class, logical as it initially seems, would encourage participation. I know I cannot beat a streamliner. I also don't have anywhere to store a streamliner, nor a means of transporting one to race meetings. My (sole) recumbent has to be one which I can use often enough to justify having it - hence the highlighting of the crucial phrase in the quote above. I suspect that people like me far outnumber people who aspire to pure speed via technology, admirable as that aspiration is.

One day I might get round to building a fully faired low racer, and finding/financing somewhere to keep it and a means of transporting it; but that's not likely to happen unless I'm well and truly hooked by racing my more modest machine first.

Perhaps the best distinction between HPVs, leading to two classes only, is "street legal" versus "not street legal"? Or rather, since the powers that be have not (yet) seen fit to persecute low racers for being "unsafe" as road vehicles, that distinction should be "street practical" (like my Kingcycle...) versus "not street practical" (that is, requiring a van to move it around?). Of course, this would open a whole new debate about which machines fall into what class... but at least there would only be a choice of 2!