It would have been nice to think I could have snuck the bike in just as grid filler and no one would flag it unless it and it’s rider caused problems in the ranks by placing well. The bike’s been flagged before so no sense bothering to try getting it in as it is set up now.So what are the proper channels to get it approved with that undertail exhaust and why if there are no performance gains is it a problem? Or is this the point that has to be argued through the proper channels?
I don’t understand. Five bucks worth of pipe, an hour’s work and the bike would be legal.
I have to agree with Paul. The rule is in the book. It’s been there for years. The bike has already been turned away in it’s present state.
I’m not saying I agree with the rule, but why not just change the midpipe and bring the bike out to race?
Rick
.
I’m looking into as we speak.
The proper channel is to submit a rule change to the tech chair to be voted on, it wouldn’t be done in time for 2013 i don’t think. Talking about it here will not change anything except get a feel for who might agree with you.
Yeah i have heard that litteraly a hundred times, if we actually agreed to “let it slide”, places 6 to 25 of every race would be full of illegal bikes that have nothing to do with vintage racing. it’s about a 100$ piece of exhaust for you, but the same agrument has been made for just about every rule, even about bikes that don’t even fit inside the year brackets of the VRRA. Just because you don’t win doesn’t mean you shouldn’t follow the rules, you are still beating someone.
Having said that, I think there is a difference with showing up every race with a bike you have been told is illegal and expecting tech to let you race on and on and showing up for the first time in VRRA with an underseat exhaust.
My dad had an underseat exhaust on his hawk, he did 2 races until the tech said “you will not be able to race with this exhaust at the next event”
But he won’t be beating someone because his exhaust pipe is bent in a different way than stock. Although I must agree with everyone, why won’t somebody just spend the hour and finally make that bike conform ? It is probably the only case in history where that stupid rule applies. 
Yes, the rule has been there for years, but this is the sordid story of HOW it got there…
When this motorcycle first made it’s appearance at a VRRA event (North Bay several years ago), there was no specific rule in the book forbidding underseat exhausts in P4. Stu Pilkington brought the bike to North Bay as a shake down run at the end of the season and with the intention that his daughter Nicole, would race it the following year.
Someone at tech decided that the exhaust was illegal, even though there was nothing specific in the book regarding underseat exhausts and a bunch of us cited several examples of motorcycles in that era that had underseat exhausts. You could even stretch it that some G50 Matchlesses and Manxes had high exhausts alongside the seat, so what’s the difference really?
The specific clause magically appeared into the online rulebook after the fact and was called the “Pilkington Rule.”
As a result, the club lost Stu (a former VRRA Vice President) as a racing member, his daughter Nicole as a racing member and his wife Darlene used to volunteer with registration.
All this for a CB1 that wouldn’t be even marginally competitive in P4F3 if you snuck a supercharger on it.
Just another example of stuff that really shouldn’t happen.
Thanks for the background Steve.This is a good example of forced decisions without the input of the membership that does damage to the club.Hopefully some of these loopholes have been closed.
“All this for a CB1 that wouldn’t be even marginally competitive in P4F3 if you snuck a supercharger on it.”
About this part though…I thought I heard this bike still holds the lap record for P4F3 somewhere?
Brad
Peeeeeelease… i don’t think so
Has there been a vote to try to remove this rule since then?
Thanks Steve…
I knew there had to be more behind this saga. It just didn’t make any sense. Now it makes all the sense in the world. I applaud Stu for his convictions.
Another example of good intensions taking a bad turn, seems to happen fairly often around here.
For every action, there is an equal (or greater) reaction.
Here’s the word of the day…CONSEQUENCES.
Dom, apparently there was no vote to put the rule in, shouldn’t require one to remove it if that was the case.
Thanks for the background info, Steve. When you put it into context, it’s even sadder that we got to this point.
I really hate to highjack Paul’s post any further than it has been already but, as usual, Steve B has let his bias show and I have to respond with some facts.
In fact there was a bike presented to tech with an undertail exhaust during Dave Hall’s time as Tech Chair many years ago and the rider was asked to change it to comply with the requirement that bikes have to have a period appropriate exhaust. It had nothing to do with performance advantage but with period appearance (just like the R1 bodywork). The rules for all 4 periods at the time only specified that exhausts must be of racing style in use during the period, with some additional restrictions on materials used for each period.
Following this a certain Ducati was presented to tech, during John Crossley’s bailiwick, with an underseat exhaust. When it was pointed out by Tech that the exhaust did not meet the existing rule of being a style in use during the period, the rider changed it for the next race, no hassles, no web posts complaining about stupid rules. That rider not only did not walk away from the VRRA but has gone on to spend years working for the club as a member of the Executive.
When the CB1 appeared at NB a knowledgeable, ex-tech guy approached me and asked me to take a look at the bike as there were a few things that would need to be changed to make it legal for our rules. I cannot remember now all the details but to say that Stu was not a happy camper when the problem areas were pointed out would be an understatement. Whether this was the sole reason for Stu not racing with us the following season I do not know, but somehow I thought there were other reasons as well.
So when, at the AGM that year, I was asked to clarify the rules to prevent the situation that “if it doesn’t say in the rules that I can’t do something, then it means I can”, this seemed like something that needed spelling out as Stu was the third rider who had been asked to change this style of exhaust by different tech chairs. Incidentally, these rule clarifications were worked on by the tech committee of the time before being incorporated in the rulebook as clarifications of the already existing period requirements.
As Dom said, his Dad started racing his Hawk when I was still tech chair and the exhaust was one of the items that he was asked to change to continue racing the bike in our events, while still being allowed to run it until the change was made.
It never ceases to amaze me the effort that some people take to justify why they should be allowed to run the bike they have, rather than make the changes that would make it fully compliant with our rule structure.
Finally, Francois, if there are all these bikes around with non-legal components that you are aware of, I am sure Jim Barton would like to know as tech people cannot be experts on every model and rely, to a certain extent, on those who are.
Stan
Hijack the post all you want. The more that members can glean from this and the greater the clarification of the rules the better…besides, paul doesn’t have to worry about selling this bike anymore.
If anyone is still interested.,I’m not sure how to post pics but I can email some pictures of my cb1 pipe mod.to them..cheers dave#103
Is this bike still for sale? or not?
Chris