Sports class regulations

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:

1. Rider should not be able to touch the ground ü a good measurable rule, shows that the machine does not seat rider in severely reclined position. Also somehow related to eyeheight.
2. Seat back should not be more reclined than 35 degrees from horizontal û difficult to measure as seats are not flat etc. I think rule 1 covers a similar area anway.
3. It must be possible to do a U-turn on the bike on the Eastway start line ü good, fair, keep it in.
4. Must have some luggage capacity ü a bag/rack or a hard boot, good, fair, keep it in.
5. Any boot should be practical and accomodate luggage ü a boot should not be mandatory, but I think it should serve a practical purpose. i.e. be a luggage carrier
6. Any front fairing must be transparent to not obscure the view of the road and not offer aerodynamic advantage ü good, fair, keep it in.
7. No wheel discs ü except on multitrack vehicles, because stability is hardly affected on a trike etc. by crosswinds
8. Must have mudguards where rider is not otherwise shielded from wheel spray ü
9. Must have gearing to allow rider to start riding on a 1/10 inclineü suggest teat location
10. Machine to be fitted with a horn or bell ü
11. Machine must be capable of braking in a straight line with independent brakes operable from the handlebars ü

Not sure how many rules you can violate before being excluded.. 2 or 1. Are all rules "worth" the same in this sense?

 

H

Hi Howard, thanks for your contribution.

Yowie wrote: Seat back should not be more reclined than 35 degrees from horizontal û difficult to measure as seats are not flat etc. I think rule 1 covers a similar area anway.

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.

Yowie wrote: Any boot should be practical and accomodate luggage ü a boot should not be mandatory, but I think it should serve a practical purpose. i.e. be a luggage carrier

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).

Yowie wrote: No wheel discs ü except on multitrack vehicles, because stability is hardly affected on a trike etc. by crosswinds

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.

Yowie wrote: Must have gearing to allow rider to start riding on a 1/10 inclineü suggest test location

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.

Yowie wrote: Machine to be fitted with a horn or bell ü

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.

Yowie wrote: Machine must be capable of braking in a straight line with independent brakes operable from the handlebars ü

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).

Yowie wrote: Not sure how many rules you can violate before being excluded.. 2 or 1. Are all rules "worth" the same in this sense?

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.

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   

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 ) and his seat angle will be 4 degrees too low, he surely wouldn't have any aerodynamic advantage over a shortie like me on the same bike, and his bike will be just as practical on the road, so are we being unfair to him??

Just a thought.

Alan

Yowie wrote: I use my Trice on the road, so between races it is fitted with all the accessories required: rack lights mudguards two mirrors horn 36 gears, not 9 for racing 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.

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.