ProTwin rule clarifications

[GSVR]

I have just sent an email to MNZ over some information I would like to know and will post the reply here when I get it. Heres the email I sent.


Hello Paul,

I have read the Protwin Rules and are confused over the Subframe rules.

Could you advise me if the rear subframe and undertray have to remain OEM unmodified or is this area free to modify or replace?

Also another matter that I'm unsure of is the use of non standard tyre sizes. There has been some debate on a popular biker website over this and I am considering fitting oversize rear tyres to my bike.

And one last thing is the Homologation of bikes. My 2003 K3 model is not on the list of Homologated bikes nor are any of the earlier carbed models (1999- 2002). Will these bikes be getting added or should I apply for homologation.

As far as the the ProTwin class is concerned I think it is a great thing for the sport and hope to see the class flourish.

Regards and thanks
Garry Hosking
MNZ 16435

I think ProTwins is one of the best things for the sport in a while and want to see it really take off so getting any gray rule areas sorted early is important so we all know whats allowed.

[svr]

Billy mentioned that that certain twat has appealed MNZ's regection of the protest re. Morgan's rear tyre size i.e. he's still not officially NZ champ. Pretty sad affair really.

All this debate and research - Garry you must be doin' PT nats next year!?

[Billy]

The appeal was withdrawn as I understand it and Karl is the new Protwins Champ

[Shaun]

Well its actually no use asking on here but when I get a reply from MNZ it will get posted so we all know.

We already do Know! ( it is in the rule book if you want to read it) if you can type english, you must be able to read it, so check out the rule book, you will get the awnser from there easy and fast, as well as save some of Paul's very valuable time, that he donates to us!!!!!!!!

www.mnz.co.nz

[Shaun]

This is the first time I've emailed MNZ about anything and I think as a paid up member I deserve a reply about the legality of my bike and the hours I've put into fabricating components.



Good joke mate, Paul Stewart IS NOT PAID BY MNZ- He is paid by HONDA NZ
Your questions are all awnsered in the rule book!

[johnsv650]

all other items not mentioned below must remain standard.......and rear subframe isn't listed......
thats from the rule book......well not the rule book as the rules for protwin came out after the rule book was printed, just on mnz website......confusing eh...

[svr]

True, the rule is pretty clear i.e. you cant change the rear sub-frame - its been identified as something that should be changed (as established in another thread) and hopefully gets changed for next year.

[johnsv650]

thats your thoughts other have different ones, is it because one make with more hp needs more advantage over another make........
just leave them standard,

[Billy]

True, the rule is pretty clear i.e. you cant change the rear sub-frame - its been identified as something that should be changed (as established in another thread) and hopefully gets changed for next year.
Ah!! but is it that cut and dried?It all depends how you interperet the writing of the rule!!The rule states that fairing brackets and instrument panels may be changed And as I see it the Tailpeice is part of the fairing kit and is held on by the rear subframe(As discussed with Paul Stewart while the Protwins rules were in the experimental stage).Therefore if you cant change the rear subframe you shouldnt be able to change the front either therefore rendering most of the Protwins bikes illegal.The battery box and undertray are as stated at this stage illegal according to the rule book!!No argument.I also fail to see how replacing an aluminium subframe with a steel one gives a bike any advantage.Of course there will be the wankers who will say thats only my opinion as a supplier of these alleged illegal subframes,Think again my Jigs and moulds are well and truly paid for by now and if I dont sell another one who cares.Im busy enough doing 600 and 1000 fairings anyway.One needs to be careful they dont tread on the wrong toes or they might find their own teams equipment under scrutiny at regular intervals

[svr]

my Jigs and moulds are well and truly paid for by now
Great! - you can run me off a real cheap set then ?! - for F3 only of course.

Also you guys have a read of the ignition rule - are advancer chucks ok?

[Billy]

my Jigs and moulds are well and truly paid for by now
Great! - you can run me off a real cheap set then ?! - for F3 only of course.

Of course Cooky,$10.00 for the kit and $1000.00 for the DT levy.Whats the DT levy I hear you ask.Well its our newly introduced DORK tax specifically introduced for time wasters

[johnsv650]

billy,
both main models come out with naked versions, and faired versions, naked ones are allowed to make a front subframe to suit, the rear fairing will fit a sv if you use earlier models, is that correct ? k3 and k4 rear seat will fit onto standard subframe......just use the earlier seat mould !
old stock out the door........simple
sell whatever model fronts and the seat from a k3 or k4....everyone happy

[svr]

Of course Cooky,$10.00 for the kit and $1000.00 for the DT levy.Whats the DT levy I hear you ask.Well its our newly introduced DORK tax specifically introduced for time wasters

I know what it is - I've been asked to pay it before...

[GSVR]

Ah!! but is it that cut and dried?It all depends how you interperet the writing of the rule!!The rule states that fairing brackets and instrument panels may be changed And as I see it the Tailpeice is part of the fairing kit and is held on by the rear subframe(As discussed with Paul Stewart while the Protwins rules were in the experimental stage).Therefore if you cant change the rear subframe you shouldnt be able to change the front either therefore rendering most of the Protwins bikes illegal.The battery box and undertray are as stated at this stage illegal according to the rule book!!No argument.I also fail to see how replacing an aluminium subframe with a steel one gives a bike any advantage.Of course there will be the wankers who will say thats only my opinion as a supplier of these alleged illegal subframes,Think again my Jigs and moulds are well and truly paid for by now and if I dont sell another one who cares.Im busy enough doing 600 and 1000 fairings anyway.One needs to be careful they dont tread on the wrong toes or they might find their own teams equipment under scrutiny at regular intervals


Thankyou very much for this information.

[Billy]

I know what it is - I've been asked to pay it before...

Yip,Hard to believe but true

[GSVR]

Got my reply. Good to know my bike will be Homologated soon. As for the other matters I hope they get sorted quickly.

Morning Garry
Now that we are in-between seasons and that there have been a number of issue that have been raised with me I will be having a look at the rules so for the mean time I would suggest that you hang fire.
Sub frames and tyres were a couple of issues that have been raised.
As for Homologation I will ask Suzuki to forward to me the necessary paper work .
Good to see that you are supportive of the class and I like you hope to see it grow.
Cheers
Paul

[johnsv650]

hi,
maybe thats a bit of a longer story,
i wonder if they rules can only be changed by remit, 30 days before agm and if passed they would be in new rules for following year, so as far as i know no remits are in for protwins, so no possible rule changes remits till 2009 agm and then rules could come in for 2010 season......
his answer sounded like wait a month but i wonder if its more likely to be a year or two.........
correct me if im wrong againnnnnnnnnn please

[steveyb]

That was in the old days.
The new MNZ constitution provides for the commisioners of any of the given disciplines to modify rules (I suggest after consultation) on the fly as it were, and notify the appropriate membership.
This was done to allow the commissions to be more reactive and indeed proactive to created rules that, while maybe good ideas at the time, appeared to be ineffective, unsafe, or just wrong.
Now that Pro-Twin, or should one say SV-ER cup, has run one season, we (or youse fullas) can sit back and digest which of the rules are good and which need massaging.
For all of those guys who have just been moaning about things (and there have been a few), take a breath, "Good things take time ay?"

Bring out the RAPTOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[oyster]

Sorry Stevey, but the MNZ site has a clear flow chart on rule changes, last revision Jan '08. The only changes that can occur "on the fly" are items or detail relating to safety.
General stuff can only be "clarified".
John is right, The fastest you could get a rule change now would be in time for the 2010 championship.

I have an e-mail from Sandra Perry (president) confirming this also a while back.

What clause in the new consitution gives the commissioners authority to change rules?

Thanks

[oyster]

I shouldn't tackle you like that Stevey. You do so much good work for the sport so I should respect you more. Sorry.
But I'm a fan of Pro Twin. I think the rules are fine. I also appreciate the hard work Paul Stewart put into getting these rules done. And I well remember the frustration that for around 12 months he couldn't get any feedback from the community he was working for. If there are people unhappy now, they had their chance.....

[steveyb]

No, no, fair call. However, as an MNZ member I had not been made aware of this change to procedure.
Communication breakdown?
I don't have my rulebook with me, but I was definitely under the impression that when we changed from 'Conference' to AGM, because AGMs are business meetings not operational meetings, the Commissioners were provided with the authority to make rule changes in response to reasonable requests from interested members.
I thought that that situation was actually a good way to go.
Of course allowing changes on safety grounds is appropriate.
What though does 'clarified' end up meaning? It is possible of course in the course of making a clarification, to actually change the rule completely if one set about to do that.

Big ups to the Pro-Twins. It works quite well in the UK and USA, so no reason for it not to here.

But like I said, BRING OUT THE RAPTOR!!!!!!!

Enjoy

Steve :-)

[johnsv650]

the cagiva raptor is th ebike with the most adantages,
sv motor with better cams and higher compression,
upside down forks and other small details........
but it not homologated............can race ?

[Drew]

the cagiva raptor is th ebike with the most adantages,
sv motor with better cams and higher compression,
upside down forks and other small details........
but it not homologated............can race ?

How is it not homologated? I thought it was mass produced with numbers well exceeding the requirements.

it would desimate all on the track, teh forks are superior because they are cartridge style, so can be wanked with all the fruit of Ohlins labours, USD or RWU dont matter.

[Shaun]

How is it not homologated? I thought it was mass produced with numbers well exceeding the requirements.

I think! The manufacturer/Importer needs to submit paper work to MNZ, to have the unit certified for racing use?

[Drew]

I think! The manufacturer/Importer needs to submit paper work to MNZ, to have the unit certified for racing use?

Hmmmm.

Wonder if it would be picked up when entry forms were submitted, or wait untill some disgruntled racer that lost to it lodged a complaint?

I aint thinkin of racing one, but anyone who is can get in touch with me, as this is exactly the sort of bike my sponsor could get REAL cheap.

[johnsv650]

we might race one if we could get one cheap,
importer/agent has to show that there was 10 imported that year...

[Drew]

we might race one if we could get one cheap,
importer/agent has to show that there was 10 imported that year...
Ah, well that makes more sense. I thought it was just done on production numbers. Is it the year of production, or just ten imported the year your one comes in?

[johnsv650]

sorry can't help on that one......

[svr]

the cagiva raptor is th ebike with the most adantages,
sv motor with better cams and higher compression,
upside down forks and other small details........
but it not homologated............can race ?

Only the latest bikes are homologated e.g. not my 6 yr old sv although didn't seem to matter at the one nat. round I did.
The Raptor would get dusted by an Aprilia 650 - which as far as I can tell meets the rules ??!!

[johnsv650]

aprilia 650 what model ?

[svr]

er whoops sorry John I meant Aprilia 550 (road legal - SVX?) 70hp & 130kg

[steveyb]

Perhaps it is all in a name, but whenever I heard the class referred to by anyone in authority it was referred to as 650 Pro-Twin.
Is it the case that bikes are 650cc and nothing else, or is that name just a default setting and that an SVX550 would be legal.

Actually giving it a thought would suggest that it might not meet the 900mm (?) handle bar rule and not too many other mods are permitted.
Besides, they are too dear aren't they???

Bring out the Gim.. I mean Raptor.

[svr]

Rule 1. "twin cylinder four strokes up to 650 cc ... "
With clip-ons and lowered suspension would have bars < 900 mm.
No upper cost limit (they were going for $14-15K last year). I don't think they're really in the spirit of the class, but they point to a bit of a hole in the rules for allowable bikes.

Best to leave both the gimp and the raptor in the dungeon...

[Hellraiser]

With clip-ons and lowered suspension would have bars < 900 mm.


There is NO rule in Pro Twins stating a max bar height. However if the Pro Twins are run with the F3 Class then an SXV can not enter cause the F3 Motard rule applies. But by the looks of it the Pro Twins will have the numbers to race my themselves next season therefore there will be no reason why they can't enter.