Sports class regulations
Printed From: BHPC Forum
Category: Public: Open to anyone
Forum Name: Etc
Forum Description: Any other racing-related topics
URL: https://forum.bhpc.org.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=136
Printed Date: 27 March 2026 at 4:44am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.07 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Sports class regulations
Posted By: davidhembrow
Subject: Sports class regulations
Date Posted: 29 May 2005 at 9:49pm
|
<>Alan did a marvellous job with organising today (as did others), but in the thread titled "First time racer", he admitted: >Hurricanes are too low if you apply the rule to the letter (unless
the rider What was said by Mike Burrows at the last AGM (at least I think it was then) was that it ought to
be self regulating and that those who race sports class should concern
themselves with the regulations. It
seems that you have self regulated yourself out of sports class, and
quite probably any other Hurricane riders under 7 feet tall also
shouldn't claim to be in Sports class. Anyway, don't take it personally. I like coming along because it's
fun, not to quibble over rules. I'm not going to turn up with a
tape measure next time I race. However, I think we ought to stick to
our rules and I'll repeat this one again here: Sports - for unfaired or tail-faired bikes. Any tail fairing must
be a usable luggage carrier. In addition, the rider's eyes must be at
least 105 cm above the ground (though this is something of a movable
feast, depending on the height of the rider...) David. ------------- David Hembrow, basketmaker http://www.hembrow.eu |
Replies:
Posted By: dave
Date Posted: 29 May 2005 at 10:36pm
|
We claimed Sports Class safe in the knowledge that Sports Class had previously been won by Mr Setter on a Hurricane; nobody complained (as far as I know). BTW, I no longer claim "Sports" due to my tailbox not being a luggage carrier. ------------- I want to give peace, love and kisses out to this whole stinking world! |
Posted By: AlanGoodman
Date Posted: 29 May 2005 at 10:45pm
|
If 105cm was a hard and fast rule I would never have claimed Sports... "though this is something of a movable feast, depending on the height of the rider.." That vague wording is the problem, that's why I think a seat height measurement would be a better bet and remove all the doubt. It would also give shortarses like me the opportunity to race on equal machinery. I'd need a Penny Farthing to get my eyes up to Sports Class height... I believe Sports Class was won by a Hurricane a couple of years ago. As that sort of set a precedent everybody on Hurricanes seemed to be claiming Sports and that was one of the reasons we bought Hurricanes (knowing that we would never be competitive in Open or Unfaired). Nobody questioned it last year and all I've done this year is add a load-carrying tailbox. Last year I entered every race and didn't win Sports Class in any of them. This year I've only won at Castle Coombe and that was basically because very few Sports Class riders turned up!! I actually finished 4th today, so I'm not exactly running away with Sports Class on the Hurri, but I'll ride my old Kingcycle for the remaining races I enter this year. I'd rather tootle round at the back on the Kingcycle or just not race at all than upset anybody. I'll probably just do a couple more rounds and have a re-think for next year when the rule will hopefully be clarified. I've already sent my entry off for the second Castle Coombe round so I'll definitely be doing that one. I've also booked accommodation for Lancaster/Preston so I'll probably do those as well. Anyway, let's not kid ourselves... If Mike, Rob and Dave had stayed in Sports Class this year we'd all be racing for 4th place... Alan.
------------- |
Posted By: AlanGoodman
Date Posted: 29 May 2005 at 11:34pm
|
Mind you... I'd better measure my eye-height on the Kingcycle. That could be close as well. ------------- |
Posted By: Mike Veal
Date Posted: 30 May 2005 at 12:35am
|
Looks like I may have opened a can of worms by asking the
question about luggage carrying tailboxes in the 'First time racer' forum. Please don't tootle around at the back Alan as I think you and I could have a good race if we were both on the track at the same time. Especially now I've got my (slightly dodgy) tailfairing, (which I shall now endeavour to make more useable for the next meet). I don't mind the Hurricanes being in Sports class but agree they do seem a bit low. Maybe the rule should be a combination of both eye and seat height. For example Seat height + eye height < 140cm or 135cm or whatever? Mike Veal (eye height 105.1cm provided my tyres are pumped up) ------------- Mike V |
Posted By: gNick
Date Posted: 30 May 2005 at 10:58am
|
Maybe the definition of the sports class should be modified. I think
the principle of it is to provide a competition for the enthusiastic
rather than the serious, the eyeheight rule is there since most
participants would be running a general purpose machine rather than a
racing specific one. The class is supposed to be self governing anyway and even someone with the eyeheight and machine nominally sports class wouldn't necessarily be included - the thought of messrs. English or Fleming on a Kingcycle come to mind. If you as a whole have no problems with Alan on a Hurricane (which after all does have a slight weight penalty) then there is no problem. Maybe we should put in another class as well, the Leisure class with an insistence on wearing a baggy tracksuit or a shellsuit, riding the equivalent of sub £100 MTBs and stopping for a pint part way round. Extra points could be gained by not actually taking the bike off the car and just strolling round the track. ------------- gNick "I'm afraid it's definite, Mrs Banker - your son has bicycles" |
Posted By: mikesleep
Date Posted: 30 May 2005 at 11:58am
|
I too can't see anything to like about the current rule but I would be
a bit happier if the rule controlled the seat angle with possibly a
minimum seat-height.
------------- mike |
Posted By: Rhino
Date Posted: 30 May 2005 at 1:26pm
|
As that first time racer i must say that i enjoyed the event very much and was made to feel very welcome, thank you all for that. As to the classification of hurricanes - they are often described as a Quasi-lowracer, and therein lies the problem, not a true lowracer like the ratracers, but not as high as a kingcycle, the seat height is 31cm and seat angle can be set at 25-31 degrees, at its most upright it might just put my eye level at 105cm, at it's most reclined i can drag my knuckles on the floor ! It is a very versatile machine, upright and tour it, recline and race, as challenge say on their website(end of advert) I think gnick's got a good idea though, classification on intent - serious, enthusiastic, leisure, and lethargic |
Posted By: davidhembrow
Date Posted: 30 May 2005 at 2:28pm
|
Hi All, The last thing I'd want to have done with my post was to start any bad feelings amongst racers. I just think we should obey our own regulations within their spirit, or change them. It just appeared to be the case that Alan knew he was not within the spirit of the regulations. IMO, the most stupid thing about the 105cm eye height rule is that lanky people potentially end up with a greater range of bikes to ride than short people. From what I'm hearing here, it seems that no-one rides their Hurricane with an eye height of 105cm. If we're looking at the machines, then what exactly counts as a sports class machine is very difficult to say. Mine's a stock Ross. Mike Sleep's is a slightly modified Ross with more reclined seat, and Paul Lowing's Ross was modified a lot. Kingcycles are all a bit lower than a normal Ross, but the seat is more upright. Home-builts can look like almost anything etc. None of us want to have a UCI type of situation where we have people measuring angles and tube lengths. It seems to me that the height is rather more important than the structure of your fairing. So, Dave having left sports because his fairing isn't very good for carrying stuff in, while Alan stays in because his is doesn't really make a lot of sense. Surely they don't vary very much in the aerodynamic assistance that they offer ? In the past, I believe that Mike Burrows on his Ratcatcher has used different (faired) wheels for racing than those he used for touring. I don't see a lot of difference between doing that and fitting a light aerodynamic but useless for touring rear fairing when racing. Seat height alone isn't a good measure. At least one guy at Cyclevision a couple of years ago was lying virtually horizontally on top of a pair of 700C wheels. So, his seat height would pass any reasonable sub-penny level, but his bike couldn't be claimed to be a terribly practical machine. I think whether you can reach the ground with your hand is a reasonable measure. That's about the point at which I think I'm sitting on a low-racer. Gnick's comment about "enthusiastic rather than serious" is itself troublesome. Personally, I do very little that could be counted as training (a Sunday morning 8 mile circuit is usually the only time I go flat out for more than a couple of minutes), I spend very little on my bike and I don't go to all races. So, I could certainly be more "serious". However, on the other hand I do reasonably well in sports class, which almost by definition could push me out of it should I appear to be too "serious", and maybe quibbling about regs pushes me right out. Maybe I shouldn't be in sports class myself - but as I'm quite happy riding the Ross, I'm unlikely to ever leave the class due to a change of bike. I think it would be easier to look at the bikes than the riders, which leaves nothing to stop "English or Fleming" racing away with the sports class prize. What stops them, of course, is the opportunity to take a better prize by racing either open or unfaired. I know I've seen people race more than once, in different classes, but only one result gets counted, doesn't it ? Alan, I'm not in any way upset with you. I'd much rather you ride whatever you want and have fun than that you appear on some other bike and "tootle" on my account. I have a proposal for sports class rules which I think would allow all current sports class competitors. The intention is, I take it, to allow machines used for touring also to be raced against one another. So, I think some combination of the following might be a reasonable basis for this: o seat height (could it simply be that if you can put your hand on the ground then you're not sports ?) o seat back angle (to exclude extreme dutch high-racers) o turning circle (if it can't be U-turned on an average road, it's probably not a tourer) o lack of front fairing (because they're a pain when touring, obscure potholes etc.) o no aerodynamic wheel discs o practical rear boots allowed Given that there is so little commonality between bikes, maybe we have to say that you can bend one rule a little, but not two ? For instance, Simon's BikeE front fairing was transparent and offered little aerodynamic help, and he toured with it. So excluding that makes very little sense. Alan's Hurricane may break the hand on the ground "rule", but none of the others. Mike broke the wheel discs "rule" etc. It allows everyone a chance to experiment a little. Any comments on that ? David. ------------- David Hembrow, basketmaker http://www.hembrow.eu |
Posted By: AlanGoodman
Date Posted: 30 May 2005 at 2:33pm
|
I've just had a quick rough measure up on my Kingcycle and my eyes certainly aren't much above 105 on that. Just for the record, my Hurricane is a "Tour" rather than a "Sport" which means it's slightly higher than some that have raced (without being called cheats as far as I know) in Sports Class.... But it's also got the shortened frame to allow for my little legs, which means I can't get the seat into the most upright position (the front edge of the seat fouls the main frame tube). I've also just realised that we've been sticking the girls on the sheet as O/U/S/J/L without even thinking about it (I assume the other juniors do the same as they all seem to claim Sports except Sacha...) although I guess if anybody bothered to check they probably wouldn't be over 105 either. Alan. ------------- |
Posted By: AlanGoodman
Date Posted: 30 May 2005 at 2:40pm
I can't get my hands on the floor... I've probably got short arms as well as short legs...  ------------- |
Posted By: davidhembrow
Date Posted: 30 May 2005 at 2:42pm
|
Hi Alan, I don't consider you to be a cheat, nor the girls, even if they're much lower than 105cm. It would be silly to say that they are supposed to compete with the low-racers. At the moment, I believe everyone racing in sports is doing so in the spirit of what was intended. I'd really just like to see the regs reflect what we're doing and for there to be a slightly better way of determining what sports class is. David. ------------- David Hembrow, basketmaker http://www.hembrow.eu |
Posted By: AlanGoodman
Date Posted: 30 May 2005 at 3:14pm
|
I'd be happy with any rule that was clear, even if it ruled me out... I won't be competing in Sports Class on the Hurricane again until things have been clarified. Hopefully everybody should be happy with that. Alan ------------- |
Posted By: gNick
Date Posted: 30 May 2005 at 5:31pm
|
The problem with fixed rules is that we the riders are of all shapes
and sizes which means there is no physical measurement that is going to
be universally appropriate. We could work it in the manner of the roadies and have performance related system based on position over a number of races but this will involve rather more work than the current system. I would be inclined to stay much as we are with some extra guidelines as proposed by Dave and somebody in a position to make a final decision should there be any contention. I am happy to do that since I am not in the sports class and hence have no bias. On that ground I see no reason why Alan shouldn't compete as sports class. ------------- gNick "I'm afraid it's definite, Mrs Banker - your son has bicycles" |
Posted By: Mr Blue Sky
Date Posted: 30 May 2005 at 6:53pm
|
When I saw David's original post, I knew this was going to be fun! If I hadn't had trouble logging on, I'd have chipped in sooner... Alan - I would not be happy if you stop racing your Hurricane because of this discussion. David's point is simply that the rules are unclear and could do with firming up, and not an immediate call for change. Any change should be thoroughly debated and fully agreed before being implemented. I think we've had some interesting ideas here - I particularly like the idea of dropping the eye height rule in favour of a rule which would take the rider's size into account, such as inability to touch the ground (no measurement necessary), and a steering lock rule could be good too. Rules should be simple and few and we should stipulate that a budding sports competitor should meet say three out of four requirements to qualify. I'd like to see this debate continue and any proposals voted on at the AGM. Meantime, let's carry on as we started this season, imperfect as it may be. Regards, Neil |
Posted By: Neil F
Date Posted: 30 May 2005 at 7:14pm
|
A similar problem arose with my old SpeedMachine. Dave (legs) Larrington successfully rode it to Sports class honours so a Sports bike - well it is if your 7'10" like Dave but for someone of less hurculean physique .... Too short. Now bikes like the Huricane and the SpeedMachine are clearly marginal machines and whether they are strictly speeking in or out will depend on the rider and the seat positioning. As I don't ride sports I don't really have a say but how about this: for the remainder of the year the Huricane riders ride with the seat in the most upright position (even playing field?) and then suggest definative rulings at the AGM. Thoughts? |
Posted By: dave
Date Posted: 30 May 2005 at 7:56pm
|
I aint 'alf glad I ruled myself out of S/C at the start of the season 
As for putting the Hurri seats in their most upright position; mine and Alan's are short versions, which makes moving the seat impossible. The front of the seat fouls the frame. Perhaps as we're twins, if Alan rode on my shoulders at least HIS eyes would be over 105 cm 
------------- I want to give peace, love and kisses out to this whole stinking world! |
Posted By: AlanGoodman
Date Posted: 30 May 2005 at 8:26pm
|
And I'd be faster... ------------- |
Posted By: legs_larry
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 9:21am
|
As did I at the start of the 2001 season, but I took 'em off because they were way too scary on the Speedmachine. I did, however, use them on the Kingcycle for years and never felt them to be a promble. ------------- ==================== a bit ov a lyv wyr by slof standirds |
davidhembrow wrote:Posted By: Mr Blue Sky
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 11:10am
|
Here’s my solution to the eye height troublem: let’s stipulate that the minimum eye height is a proportion (I propose 60%) of the standing height. This means that for an average bloke who’s 175 cm tall, the minimum eye height is 0.6 X 175 = 105 cm. For a lanky chap of 185 cm, eye height would have to be more than 111 cm, and if you’re a compact 165cm, a mere 99 cm would suffice. To those who say “We don’t want the hassle of measuring everyone’s height” I say “When did you last use a tape measure at a race meeting?”; in other words, we aren’t enforcing the present rule anyway (thank goodness!). Enforcement will only be necessary if there’s some dissent in the ranks – and because in terms of limb length we are all similarly proportioned, we could take the easier step of measuring the arm span from mid line (the intraclavicular notch) to the tip of the middle finger, which conveniently is about half the standing height, and multiplying by 1.2. I know there are some who will say that this is too complicated (for people who can engineer bicycles?) or that it’s unfair to orang-utangs but I say that it is much fairer and better-defined than the admittedly simpler, but practically untidy, 105 cm “moveable feast”. It will obviate any argument about seat height or angle and can simply be substituted for the present eye height rule. It is fair to both smaller and larger riders, and I commend it to the house.
Yours in proportion, Neil |
Posted By: Andrew S
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 12:17pm
...and hence is functionally equivalent to the proposed 'touching the ground' rule, if we assume there is not much scope for variation in the shoulder-eye distance. Touching the ground is easily verifiable and requires even less in the way of calibration equipment, intrusive questioning into the length of one's arse, etc. ------------- Quam celerime. |
Posted By: Adrian Setter
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 12:29pm
|
I knew someone would open this discussion sooner or later. For the record, the set-up for my 2003 class win conformed with the letter of the 105cm rule. With the seat almost as upright as it would go (I could have got another cm or two), and with the preload on the suspension wound well up (best for racing anyway) I got my eyeline to 105cm on the button. No doubt, being fairly tall helped... I'm a big fan of the club having a class in which riders with only one machine - therefore a practical road machine - can be competitive, but the 105cm rule I do not like, sharing the reasons others have stated. To me "intent" is the most important thing, and any rules should simply be a reference that help objectively to judge a machine's intent. If the Sports-class riders can decide amongst themselves what makes a Sports-class bike then we need no rules. Otherwise the 3-out-of-4 or 3-out-of-5 approach seems to have a lot going for it. ------------- Challenge Hurricane - MicWic Delta (Front half) - Burrows Ratracer |
Posted By: Mr Blue Sky
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 12:44pm
|
I agree, but I don't think it'd work because neither Alan on his Hurri nor probably anyone else in SC can touch the ground now and using it to define the sports class will tempt people to use lower bikes, whereas a 60% rule will produce a direct equivalent of what we have now. Neil |
Posted By: mikesleep
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 12:55pm
|
Since my arms are a way off the ground I assume the rule would out class the traditional Sportsclass bikes; it would also invite being thrashed by very reclined highracers (a fear of Mike Burrows). The Hurricane and many similar very nice machines should indeed compete but why with Rosses, Ratcatchers and Kingcycles? ------------- mike |
Posted By: legs_larry
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 1:22pm
|
Speaking as a semi-evolved simian, I am able to touch the ground on the Speedmachine, even with the seat in the more upright half of its range... ------------- ==================== a bit ov a lyv wyr by slof standirds |
Posted By: AlanGoodman
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 2:15pm
|
Just out of interest, does anybody know how the figure of 105cm was arrived at? ------------- |
Posted By: AlanGoodman
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 2:51pm
|
Can I make a suggestion... As there are 8 races left I think Adrian should get his Hurricane out and win Sports Class. With the trophy spoken for the rest of Sports Class can just go back to racing for the fun of it... Seriously, I really don't want to lose sight of the main reason for racing (for me anyway) which is to hoon about on the bike without car drivers trying to kill me and to have a bit of fun. Being in Sports Class just means that there are a bunch of people I can compete fairly closely with as far as the championship goes, but to be honest in individual races it doesn't matter at all because I'm still trying to catch those same people (and others) whatever classes we all race in. At the end of the day I have a quick look at the results and then I forget about it until the next one...
------------- |
Posted By: Mr Blue Sky
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 2:56pm
|
I think David's idea was that if you can touch the ground, you shouldn't be in sports class, so such a rule would still include the UK-type bikes in sports class, but perhaps exclude some of the products of our cousins across the North Sea. |
Posted By: Mr Blue Sky
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 3:01pm
So under the "Hembrow rule", you would not be competing in sports class... under the "60% rule" you might qualify, depending on your height... under the "Burrows rule", you were in sports class. Have a banana, old boy! |
Posted By: Mr Blue Sky
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 3:15pm
Elementary, my dear Goodman - Mike set it at 60% of the average male height of 175cm! But seriously, the history of sports class competition shows that the eye height rule should be clarified. I suspect that us relative newcomers are simply ploughing an already deep furrow and I for one, standing slightly to one side of the controversy, am enjoying it. My recommendation is not to forget the issue but to ensure that it is fully debated and voted upon at the 2005 AGM. And in the meantime, let's continue to "hoon about" as we did so very enjoyably at Hayes. |
Posted By: AlanGoodman
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 5:07pm
|
Sounds good to me!! I think I might give the AGM a miss though... Not sure I want anybody poking me in the intraclavicular notch with a tape measure... ------------- |
Posted By: Adrian Setter
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 5:27pm
|
Apologies to Mike if this isn't what he meant, but the fact that bike A might happen to be faster than bike B shouldn't (in my book) be a criterion for deciding that bike A shouldn't be in the Sports class. I think the only criterion is whether the bike is a practical road-going vehicle. It's just that how to make that judgment leads to all these interesting - and subjective - debates. I would have thought that if someone can make a faster (i.e. more efficient) machine without sacrificing road-going practicality then that is exactly what the Club exists to encourage. Hmm, I think I've just proposed a case for allowing nose cones and velomobiles in Sports class And for what it's worth, I have a stong suspicion that a Ratcatcher is actually faster than a Hurricane, at least one without a tailbox. ------------- Challenge Hurricane - MicWic Delta (Front half) - Burrows Ratracer |
.Posted By: dave
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 5:52pm
|
I may be wrong here, but isn't the relative height between seat and bottom bracket more important aerodynamicly than how high your head is? ------------- I want to give peace, love and kisses out to this whole stinking world! |
Posted By: AlanGoodman
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 5:56pm
|
The Ratcatcher with Mike on board was certainly fast last year... I remember at Curborough feeling really chuffed with myself because I seemed to be keeping up with him which was really unusual... and then he said "Is my tyre completely flat??" When I looked, of course it pretty much was. Even with a flat tyre he was going at my usual pace... He stopped, fixed it then came past me again...
------------- |
Posted By: AlanGoodman
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 6:00pm
|
Dave: Shut it. This discussion is for Sports Class riders... ------------- |
Posted By: gNick
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 7:35pm
|
I would be careful about touching the ground - having watched Legs
Larry starting his Kingcycle with a hand on the ground - mind he was
younger then. ------------- gNick "I'm afraid it's definite, Mrs Banker - your son has bicycles" |
Posted By: davidhembrow
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 9:13pm
<>
I don't believe a word of the previous 60% explanation :-) Mike decided upon that figure as it resulted in his being able to talk Shimano into donating a fair bit of "105" gear as a prize for the winner of the sports class in the first year. Not a bad reason, IMO, though as the donation was made years ago and hasn't been repeated, and the rule doesn't seem to reflect what we're doing terribly well, let's change it. As I started this nonsense, and the "3 of 5" (or whatever we might end up with) seems like a reasonably popular idea, I shall volunteer right now to write up a set of these bendy rules which would reasonably define a suitably wide range of touring suitable recumbents. As we can't really do anything about a new set of rules, let's all carry on as we are until the AGM. Proposed rules are below. At the moment I'm thinking that you shouldn't need to be able to break more than one of the following rules. All quite likely need amendment, so suggest new rules or changes to me, or if you're in sports class now, or think you should be, let me know why this wouldn't include you and we can work out how to change it so it does:
Just asking people whether they tour or commute on their bikes wouldn't be enough. I'm pretty sure that five years back I saw one of the BikeFix lot touring in Northumberland on a Festina pulling a BOB trailer ! You may have noticed that I didn't mention 2 wheels. I don't see any really good reason why touring style trikes shouldn't be included. On many you'd be able to touch the ground, which is fine if it's the only rule you break. The intention is that it gives strong hints to people who are not really riding practical machines that it isn't for them, while welcoming in the widest range of machines that we can. <> ------------- David Hembrow, basketmaker http://www.hembrow.eu |
Posted By: AlanGoodman
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 9:55pm
|
I think I comply with all of those (although I'd have to check the seat angle). Far too simple and sensible though... I think the wheelbase should be at least 105 cm. Tyre pressures should be 105 PSI exactly. Crank length should be reduced to 105 mm. Each race should start at 1:05 pm on the dot... There should be a maximum of 105 entrants each year. Racing will be rubbish but we'll loads of goodies off Shimano, flog them on Ebay and all go to the pub with the proceeds....
------------- |
Posted By: legs_larry
Date Posted: 01 June 2005 at 9:48am
|
I know that in 1999, Zach Kaplan toured extensively in Europe on a Festina / Yak Coz rig. He did leave the trailer behind when doing PBP thobut. Perhaps low racers should be permitted in the Sports class iffen they're towing a trailer, containing the standard BHPC Ballast (1 socket set, 1 bench vice, 1 Richard Ballantine) ------------- ==================== a bit ov a lyv wyr by slof standirds |
Posted By: Yowie
Date Posted: 01 June 2005 at 10:51am
|
If the bike criterion is removed, then excepting rules 1 and 2, could I be in Sports also ?
IMO you can't get a more everyday practical machine than a recumbent trike. |
Posted By: gNick
Date Posted: 01 June 2005 at 11:09am
|
Unfaired trikes do have their own class but that is no reason to exclude them. I like the new rules and they don't HAVE to be ratified at the AGM so long as there are no objectors. Given that we currently are running on an unenforced rule, changing to one which makes no difference apart from including trikes shouldn't be a problem.
------------- gNick "I'm afraid it's definite, Mrs Banker - your son has bicycles" |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01 June 2005 at 11:59am
|
If, as gNick says, that we only want to check the views of the membership for any dissent and someone drafts me the new rules quick, I can include another insert into the mailing of the newsletter - that way all those not electronically advantaged (addicted ?) get to have a say in all this ... We could give a cut off date for replies of two weeks, giving time to make a decision before the next event Newsletter will be on it's way when the **??!!! courier gets the right box onto the right van .... |
Posted By: AlanGoodman
Date Posted: 01 June 2005 at 1:33pm
|
I even comply with point 8!! I would agree with Howard that a practical road/touring bike should have mudguards. I did take them off for Newport but they've been on there at all the other races. I don't see any reason to exclude trikes - Presumably some of the Windcheetahs would like to play as well...
------------- |
Posted By: davidhembrow
Date Posted: 01 June 2005 at 2:56pm
Now there's a rule that could exclude me (though not if it's the only rule I break). Ordinarily, I'd agree. Nearly all my bikes have mudguards as I don't like getting soaked. However, my Ross doesn't have a front mudguard, there isn't all that much room for one, and from riding it fairly extensively in the wet, I don't actually think it needs one. Front mudguards on SWB bikes seem destined to get broken. The one on my PDQ got fatally tangled up with my feet in the first week of ownership, and I've never fitted one to the Ross as the main beam is wide enough to take care of all the spray from the front. In comparison, while it's guard was broken, I found that the PDQ's slightly narrower main tube seems to stop virtually nothing. It could be worse, of course, as the Kingcycle's double tubes have a nice gap in the middle to let 100% of the road spray through ! As ever, it demonstrates the differences between what can be quite similar looking recumbents. Luckily, I do have a rear mudguard on the Ross. I fitted it as otherwise there was nothing but a mesh seat back between the tyre and myself. It saved me from being even more soaked in the hideous weather on the stretch up the coast of Flevoland to Lelystad a few years back. ------------- David Hembrow, basketmaker http://www.hembrow.eu |
Posted By: AlanGoodman
Date Posted: 01 June 2005 at 3:22pm
|
I've got a piece of plastic sheet across the frame on my Kingcycle which stops the water flying up between the frame tubes. Doesn't look very pretty but it does the job. Bit like the wife. Oh no, I typed that as well as thinking it! ------------- |
Posted By: Anne
Date Posted: 02 June 2005 at 7:57pm
|
I'm happy to include trikes, but my question is simple: if Howard
is allowed in, will this mean he wins both trophies? Or are
people precluded from winning two categories at once? Being a
simple soul who likes to see as many people win prizes as posible, I
should be sad if you could win in two categoreis at once. What do others think? Anne aka Mrs Bluesky |
Posted By: davidhembrow
Date Posted: 02 June 2005 at 11:04pm
<>
I'm not really all that familiar with Howard's trike, but he admitted it would fail two of the tests - that of touching the ground and seat angle. Also, I have to say that his fairing doesn't look terribly practical either. So, he's quite possibly already excluding himself quite well. I'm a little more familiar with Rob and Carol's Greenspeed trikes. Carol's looks easily "sports". It's fairly high, has practical steering and a rack. On the other hand, if Rob took his fairing off, his still wouldn't be "sports". It doesn't do corners well, is very low, very reclined and I don't think it's got a luggage rack either. So it'd fail on several counts. What I was thinking of really was that the likes of the PDQ-3 and Anthrotech, should anyone turn up on one, ought to obviously get in, and that less extreme Trice and Greenspeed models also ought to be sports class. I know it's all a bit arbitary, but the intention is to come up with something which distinguishes practical touring machines from, er, less practical touring machines. Clearly there will be borderline cases which are difficult to decide, but if we open it too much, we'll just have another name for "open". I think Howard was being a bit mischievous in his scrubbing out of the first two rules. This is fine. We have to test the rules to know if they work. If it is agreed in general that Howard's trike doesn't belong in sports, and the rules excluded him, then they succeeded in their aim. Many trikes that we might otherwise consider to be suitable for sports might well fail because they start by being low. However, the trikes do have their own class as well, so I don't think we need feel too bad about this. It's not yet decided whether we allow >2 wheelers at all. If people can win more than one trophy at a time, I think that's fine. If some superman comes along and manages to take sports, unfaired and open on a stock Rebike, then he definitely deserves the trophies ! The different classes are needed only because this is so unlikely to happen. David. <> ------------- David Hembrow, basketmaker http://www.hembrow.eu |
Posted By: LeeW
Date Posted: 02 June 2005 at 11:40pm
|
Would my KMX count as sports? It has a Hardshell seat at 37degrees and 6" off the ground (I can put a hand on the ground) Eye level is about 75cm No mudgaurds since the maker has not yet started making any yet and to make/adapt some would be awkward Would I have to ride with a pannier(s) attached or would riding with just the rack count as luggage? It can turn within my 14' driveway ------------- Current fleet: Milan SL MK2 #027, Fujin SL II, Beany! |
Posted By: AlanGoodman
Date Posted: 03 June 2005 at 9:07am
|
I agree with David that if anybody falls within the regulations of more than one class and is fast enough to win the lot then fair play to them! It's up to the rest of us to go a bit quicker and try to stop them... Mind you, at circuits with tight bends Howard spends so much time on two wheels that he's in danger of being thrown out of Multitrack... Alan ------------- |
Posted By: Mike Veal
Date Posted: 03 June 2005 at 2:22pm
|
Hi all
I fully agree with the 'Hembrow 7' proposed rules for Sports class but would suggest that mudguards is one too many.
As an aside I think it is worth noting how important the Sports class may be in atracting and keeping new members. Having come across the BHPC last year, a key deciding factor in turning up to my first race at Curborough was that my bike fitted a category and that I might be at least competitive. I sure this is a common point of entry to the club with people turing up on their shop bought / second hand Hurricanes, M5's, Velothingies etc.
So here's to the new rules and long may they be relatively unambiguous and new rider friendly. ------------- Mike V |
Posted By: davidhembrow
Date Posted: 03 June 2005 at 2:32pm
Under the new rules, putting a hand on the ground counts against you, your seat is upright enough not to, and eye height no longer matters. That's one point against you so far. I think a KMX ought to count as sports class, as they're not really extreme performance trikes. If your replacement seat was enough more reclined than standard, that is the sort of modification which could push you out of sports class. You wouldn't need a pannier, but a rack would certainly show that you could use the machine as a practical vehicle. Mudguards are undecided. For my own practical bikes, I usually insist on them (the front of the Ross excluded as I explained before), however, many entirely practical recumbent bikes don't have them. BikeEs are an example. They're not designed for high racing performance but I've yet to see one with full mudguards. The shape of the frame probably stops most of the muck getting onto the rider anyway. You may well have found like me on the Ross that with the original seat you need a rear one to stop yourself getting soaked, but that front ones aren't so essential. The existance of a single mudguard like that on a bike, where it's needed, probably should count as being inside the mudguard rule, if we have one. Maybe instead of a mudguard rule we need a rule to say that the rider should be able to ride through a puddle without getting soaked. That's the function of the things after all. I never needed a rear mudguard on my old hard seat Ross, only on the new one with a mesh seat (and only then a section long enough to reach the solid top rack). I've ridden both Rosses in terrible weather. Mudguards are not a significantly performance altering component of a bike. Audax rides used to have a rule that you had to have a full rear mudguard to stop those following you from getting soaked. It's a very sociable rule, but as we race in mixed classes with other bikes without mudguards, and mostly during summer months when in theory it ought to be dry anyway, I'm not sure we should copy that rule. The Audax people have in any case dropped it. So, in summary, if you're happy to ride it through a puddle on request (:-)) then I'd say you have just one mark against you, and that you're inside sports class by the new rules. David. ------------- David Hembrow, basketmaker http://www.hembrow.eu |
Posted By: Yowie
Date Posted: 06 June 2005 at 11:25am
|
Guys, I'm not trying to muscle in on the sports/practical class, just helping you establish a good set of criteria. Believing that I don't want to write rules written around my Trice, these are the rules that I agree should apply, plus a few extra for suggestion:
|
Posted By: Yowie
Date Posted: 06 June 2005 at 11:31am
|
Posted By: davidhembrow
Date Posted: 07 June 2005 at 9:05am
Hi Howard, thanks for your contribution.
This is there because there exist a particular group of bikes which would break this rule. I have to admit I've not seen one in the UK, but this chap that I saw at Cyclevision a couple of years back surely wouldn't be in sports class:  35 degrees may not be the right value. It was just a guess when I wrote it the first time. I just took a look at the Challenge website and see that the seat angle on the Hurricane is adjustable between 25 adn 31 degrees. My intention is that the Hurricane should be included in sports, but with fewer rules left to break than higher more upright bikes, so it may be OK to leave it at 35. Most importantly I don't want anyone to end up walking around with instruments to test the angle. Maybe it would work to say that the rule should be something like that you can sit up and get off your bike without using your arms to lift yourself, but the guy in the photo may well be able to do that.
That's the intention. Boots should not be compulsory, but if you have one it must be practical (or you've broken a rule. I like the idea of people on less competitive bikes gaining a little advantage by riding around with rule breaking boots).
I have no strong feelings one way or the other on this. What I have in mind is a set of rules which will allow the less aerodynamic to do a bit to their bikes which make them a little more competitive than the more aerodynamic. So, the idea of letting trikes, which are impeded by having an extra wheel, put discs on their wheels fits in with this. Remember, though, that you're allowed to break one or two rules, so they could probably fit them anyway. Certainly so on a high trike like a PDQ3, an Anthrotech or a Flevotrike.
Nice idea. Maybe we should suggest the big hill at Eastway. Then if people come along at the start of the season they can try that and the U-turn in the same location.
Not a bad idea for a practical machine, but as it's not a legal requirement for road use, I don't think we should make it a requirement either. It doesn't have any relationship to performance and fitting one would simply allow the rider to break another more important rule. I feel the same about lights, reflectors etc. They have no bearing on racing performance, and are not a legal requirement unless it's dark.
I certainly think brakes are a good idea, but can you think of a bike which can't do this ? The closest I can come is an old Ken Rogers upright trike that we used to own, which had a front rim brake and a disc brake which operated on one wheel only at the back. I'm pretty sure this was road legal (but you'd never win a race on it).
I think it gets too complicated to decide if you're in or out if we start weighting rules depending on how important they are. So, I'd rather that weighting went into their composition and all rules would have the same value. That's another reason not to like the bell rule. I think it's easier to just miss that one out. David. ------------- David Hembrow, basketmaker http://www.hembrow.eu |
Posted By: LeeW
Date Posted: 07 June 2005 at 9:32am
|
What do you mean by "independent brakes"? My trike has linked brakes at the front and a rear brake, would that fail this rule? Windcheetah riders also have linked brakes. ------------- Current fleet: Milan SL MK2 #027, Fujin SL II, Beany! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07 June 2005 at 10:18am
|
Lee Independant brakes have usually been required due to general compliance with the road traffic laws. IIRC a Windcheetah has a parking brake as well as the linked fronts, therefore two independant braking systems (although I wouldn't want to have to use the parking brake while moving You should be fine under this rule, since you also have two braking systems. However, tailsliding into corners on the racing circuits using the rear should probably be avoided |
Posted By: Yowie
Date Posted: 07 June 2005 at 11:35am
|
My train of thought went something like this: I started thinking about everyday road riding, then thinking about legal requirements (bells, reflectors, lights and independent brakes). Yes, on balance I think the horn/bell rule is a bit excessive. I use my Trice on the road, so between races it is fitted with all the accessories required:
For reasons of weight more than anything, I remove these things for racing. Ideally (for me) the rules would allow me race competitively without having to make any of these changes for racing. A similar approach is usually advocated by ICE themselves; when they were creating the lighter Concept Trice Monster (22.8lbs (10.36Kg) they still insisted on adding mudguards and rack to keep with the practical machine aim. |
Posted By: AlanGoodman
Date Posted: 07 June 2005 at 2:16pm
|
This is all getting very complicated. Why don't we just go for something simple, like specifying a minimum eye height of, say, 105cm... I'll get me coat...
Actually, I think we are getting close to something that is workable and relates pretty well to practical road bikes. One thought though... What do we do if somebody of similar dimensions to Mr Larrington turns up on a Hurricane or something similar?? Although he will be able to touch the ground while sitting on the bike (even before taking it off his roof-rack Just a thought. Alan ------------- |
Posted By: davidhembrow
Date Posted: 07 June 2005 at 3:46pm
I really don't think you can win either way with tall people like Mr Larrington. After all, he managed to have eyes above 105cm on a really low bike and could also reach the ground from a Kingcycle. I, for one, welcome our new lanky overlords. Either we have to standardize on some particular individual (which isn't a particularly good idea) or if one person on a particular bike is in, then anyone else on the same bike should also be in. David. ------------- David Hembrow, basketmaker http://www.hembrow.eu |
Posted By: davidhembrow
Date Posted: 07 June 2005 at 3:48pm
I think we're on very similar lines here. Personally, it's never really occured to me remove stuff for racing, so the bike's always fitted with whatever's already on it when I come along. I have a shorter list of practical features than you because I find 7 gears are ample (I do live in Cambridge...), and as it's not the bike I use for shopping or visiting the pub, I don't (usually) have lights on it. David. ------------- David Hembrow, basketmaker http://www.hembrow.eu |
Posted By: gNick
Date Posted: 07 June 2005 at 9:37pm
|
At the end of the day it is up to the class as a whole to decide who is in and who is out - democracy in action! Most of the rules have exceptions - I have used disks front and rear on a bike I both raced and rode to work on, someone living in a flat area might have no need for gears that allow for a 10% standing start, etc.. If you think someone isn't playing fair eg. G. Obree on a PDQ then by all means exclude them, though politeness would be nice. In extremis I (or MikeB if you want to really make a point!) will make a final decision, if necessary, but I can't see that being an issue. One thing I've just thought of: if a rider starts racing in the sports class and gets the bug bad and goes out and does TRAINING seriously to the extent that they start wiping the floor with the rest of the class, what do you do? My view would be to let them finish the season as Sports class but exclude them the following season. You wouldn't want to automatically exclude the winner but there may be good reasons to in certain cases. ------------- gNick "I'm afraid it's definite, Mrs Banker - your son has bicycles" |
Posted By: Adrian Setter
Date Posted: 08 June 2005 at 10:24am
|
Did gNick mean me? Surely not! ------------- Challenge Hurricane - MicWic Delta (Front half) - Burrows Ratracer |
Posted By: gNick
Date Posted: 08 June 2005 at 3:56pm
|
Well no actually - I was being hypothetical even though it doesn't look like it! Now that you mention it though.... ------------- gNick "I'm afraid it's definite, Mrs Banker - your son has bicycles" |