650 pro twins...

[speedpro]

That's the point. Any rules need to be easily verified which means keeping it simple - standard compression with a stated maximim pumping pressure for instance, standard cams, again with stated maximum lift and duration(and the method of measuring that). All standard bits in the motor with no permitted modification to those bits.

There is ways of cheating on one thing by also cheating on the other, for instance - up the compression but increase the cam timing which would drop the cranking pressure back down. Only found out if cam timing measured, not just cam profiles. Random checks would need to be made on say the top five for any meeting.

It'll be fun wording the rules to eliminate "confusion" and ambiguity and also to come up with something that is easily enforceable. Been there, you need to think "devious"!

[FROSTY:Me]

Not allowing an aftermarket rear shock would raise the tyre bill significantly, FACT. Its not only that, the rear has to be raised to load the front and afford some ground clearance and steering precision. If we went back to the stone age and didnt allow aftermarket rear shocks I can assure you I personally would be doing some very sneaky mods inside the standard gap fillers that would be very very hard to detect without a suspension dyno. Also consider that heavyweight riders require firmer springing and aftermarket springs are either not available or very difficult to source for shocks on budget entry level bikes such as the SV650 never inteded for racing ( sorry thats exactly what they are ) So its unfair to penalise lightweight and heavyweight riders if they are only allowed to use the factory shock, given also that a reasonable spring rate change needs a complimentary valving change.

Most of the Ohlins shocks that I have sold for these are a lot closer to 1k than 2k, the over 2k ones are special handbuilt TTX36 by request and predominantly for the 2 points leaders in F3. These guys should not be victimised if they want to spend more money! They are not getting any younger and have to compensate in other areas. Bear in mind also that we provide a level of service that other players in the market just cannot hope to match.

Moreover if you oversimplify by having suspension with either very rudimentary or no adjustments the riders and their mechanics are all at sea when they move onto more elite classes where suspension setup skills are very essential. this is not only a class to further hone your riding skills, but also your setup skills.

If you want any experience with heavily regulated classes go to a kart meeting, the creative cheating and protest committes is an epidemic that breeds a lot of ill will......some of these guys are now in the Toyota racing series which have control shocks built by yours truly. I pulled a set apart just the other day to find that the internal valving had been illegally changed.

Dude no disrespect here but you have an axx to grind as soon as suspension is mentioned.
Im from the 250 proddie days--Ie RGV250 -so yea Im only too well aware of the difference between a "factory" rear shock and a factory rear shock
I think the RGV250 shock is a case in point.
However if everyone has the same "handycap" then the issue is?
The front shocks Im not suggesting NO adjustability Im suggesting restricting to a list of possible modifications within safety parameters.
Im pretty darn sure you could suggest a kit that would allow for reasonable adjustability for well under 1k

[FROSTY:Me]

That's the point. Any rules need to be easily verified which means keeping it simple - standard compression with a stated maximim pumping pressure for instance, standard cams, again with stated maximum lift and duration(and the method of measuring that). All standard bits in the motor with no permitted modification to those bits.

There is ways of cheating on one thing by also cheating on the other, for instance - up the compression but increase the cam timing which would drop the cranking pressure back down. Only found out if cam timing measured, not just cam profiles. Random checks would need to be made on say the top five for any meeting.

It'll be fun wording the rules to eliminate "confusion" and ambiguity and also to come up with something that is easily enforceable. Been there, you need to think "devious"!

I think you have hit nail on head--current rules with cam sprocket slotting allowed to me is just screaming out for deliberate misinterpretation.
back to basics--no touching the injection/engine/exhaust except for end can -no room for interpretation there

[Robert Taylor]

Dude no disrespect here but you have an axx to grind as soon as suspension is mentioned.
Im from the 250 proddie days--Ie RGV250 -so yea Im only too well aware of the difference between a "factory" rear shock and a factory rear shock
I think the RGV250 shock is a case in point.
However if everyone has the same "handycap" then the issue is?
The front shocks Im not suggesting NO adjustability Im suggesting restricting to a list of possible modifications within safety parameters.
Im pretty darn sure you could suggest a kit that would allow for reasonable adjustability for well under 1k

Okay, run stock standard and just wait and see what will happen. You have misunderstood and the RGV example is a poor one. Low horsepower and low torque means less tyre tearing issues. And there was a modicum of adjustability in that shock, not great but a whole heap better than the very budget monotube gap fillers in SV, ER, etc
With the stock shock on ( for example ) the SV very lightweight riders and very heavy riders are much much more handicapped, FACT.
Throw in a Hyosung, the stock shock on that I wouldnt use for a door closing damper, its a real handicap. FACT
With many or all of the oem shocks on these budget level bikes there is little or no flexibility in adjustment to ''load'' the tyres correctly for proper grip and tyre longevity, FACT.
It would be possible to modify the stock shocks to have more flexibility but to keep the kit cost under 1k youd have to sell a lot to offset your development costs and to have made a fair and reasonable commercial return. Renember we only have 4 million people in Helengrad and seemingly half of them on welfare.
The reality is the work is already done for you with some good aftermarket options that are attuned to our track conditions. Sure its a lump of money at the start but a whole load less grief in the long run, and then youve still got something that is sought after that you can resell!
Sure Ive got an axe to grind but for sound technical, performance and safety reasons. What I dont get is that so many try to do things on the cheap ( we are overtaxed and underpaid ) but mostly end up doing it badly. Everyday I hear horror stories and fix other peoples cock ups because they have only enough knowledge to be dangerous.
Its also important that the rules are formulated by experts with in depth knowledge. Sure it aint ging to please everyone but I think the pro twins rules are mostly right. if we restrict it even further then we truly are becoming a third world banana republic run by morons....

[slowpoke]

Ok, looking at the times from the Nationals at Manfield I can't help asking myself exactly what we have achieved with the Pro Twin's class. The bikes are within a gnat's dick of the F3 bikes in outright performance so we have effectively done a Government trick of creating a beauracratic administration and enforcement nightmare to get something that is almost identical to what we've already got. Certainly to the uninformed they are identical.

I can see the point of F3 in that it is our only "free for all" class where thinking outside the box as far as bike prep and selection is concerned is encouraged. That's cool, it gives the bike builders and tech heads something to play with.

We already have cheap classes in Buckets, Historics, pre-89, Clubmans etc so cheap racing is already available to those wanting to dip a toe in and test the racing water. So what is Pro Twins doing for us? When I look at Trade Me and plug in "race" as a search for motorcycles there are a myriad of cheap options, and when I see Ray Clee's extremely high spec' 2003 GSXR1000 http://www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-Me-Mo...-141945505.htm for sale for less than $10k there simply is not a valid argument that racing is too expensive in NZ. That thing would be the dog's danglers at any club meet and still competitive at all but the very top echelon nationally. Shaun is also selling a race prepped K5-6 GSXR1000 for less than $10k....a bargain in anyone's language.

My concern is that the young racers jumping into Pro Twins are learning how to race on slow, underpowered sports tourers rather than full on sports bikes. To paraphrase Craig Shirrifs, why learn to go slow? Shouldn't we be encouraging racers onto 600's and 1000's rather than something completely different? Note that the fast guys in F3 are the experienced racers who have done the hard yards on proper race bikes.

When I look at the likes of Sam Smith or Jay Lawrence, or Ben Spies (young AMA Superbike champion), Josh Brookes (young Oz supersport and superbike champion racing WSS) or even Casey Stoner, I don't see a Pro Twin adding any benefit whatsoever to their early careers. The trick seems to be to get them onto a proper racebike to learn proper race skills as soon as possible.

Looking at grids in Oz the supersport and superbike fields are bulging, with many club meets having to run multiple classes for different skill levels. Compare that to NZ where we struggle for numbers with only 13-14 entries at a premier national event, 3 of whom are from overseas. I don't see Pro Twins helping to reverse this and instead I think we need to encourage racers onto the international standard classes of 600-1000.

[k14]

When I look at the likes of Sam Smith or Jay Lawrence, or Ben Spies (young AMA Superbike champion), Josh Brookes (young Oz supersport and superbike champion racing WSS) or even Casey Stoner, I don't see a Pro Twin adding any benefit whatsoever to their early careers. The trick seems to be to get them onto a proper racebike to learn proper race skills as soon as possible.

Oo oo I know! 125GP

I don't agree with what you have said re pro twins. It is a really good, controlled and cheap way to get into racing. The problem with F3 is that the bikes are old and the list of modifications required for a "fast" bike is too long for the beginner racer to carry out and fund.

That gixxer thou you use as an example is a waste of time for anyone wanting to be competitive. It may be ok at club level (could possibly win with a very good rider), but at nationals you're wasting your time. Then you've got the tyre bill, one set a weekend pretty much the norm. 600's are the same, yes you can start on a bike that is ok for 12k but even if you're casey stoner you probably aren't going to be able to win on it. You're gonna need a budget of 50k+ to challenge the front of the pack.

I think in the end it all comes down to winning. A beginner with a limited budget hasn't got a shit show at winning in superbikes or supersport. But they could go and spend 10k on a SV650 and take out the local club champs in their first attempt. Not to mention the racecraft and setup skills they will learn from the close racing which can be carried on to superbikes/sport if they can get the funding to go further.

[t3mp0r4ry nzr]

Ok, looking at the times from the Nationals at Manfield I can't help asking myself exactly what we have achieved with the Pro Twin's class. The bikes are within a gnat's dick of the F3 bikes in outright performance so we have effectively done a Government trick of creating a beauracratic administration and enforcement nightmare to get something that is almost identical to what we've already got. Certainly to the uninformed they are identical.

I can see the point of F3 in that it is our only "free for all" class where thinking outside the box as far as bike prep and selection is concerned is encouraged. That's cool, it gives the bike builders and tech heads something to play with.

We already have cheap classes in Buckets, Historics, pre-89, Clubmans etc so cheap racing is already available to those wanting to dip a toe in and test the racing water. So what is Pro Twins doing for us? When I look at Trade Me and plug in "race" as a search for motorcycles there are a myriad of cheap options, and when I see Ray Clee's extremely high spec' 2003 GSXR1000 http://www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-Me-Mo...-141945505.htm for sale for less than $10k there simply is not a valid argument that racing is too expensive in NZ. That thing would be the dog's danglers at any club meet and still competitive at all but the very top echelon nationally. Shaun is also selling a race prepped K5-6 GSXR1000 for less than $10k....a bargain in anyone's language.

My concern is that the young racers jumping into Pro Twins are learning how to race on slow, underpowered sports tourers rather than full on sports bikes. To paraphrase Craig Shirrifs, why learn to go slow? Shouldn't we be encouraging racers onto 600's and 1000's rather than something completely different? Note that the fast guys in F3 are the experienced racers who have done the hard yards on proper race bikes.

When I look at the likes of Sam Smith or Jay Lawrence, or Ben Spies (young AMA Superbike champion), Josh Brookes (young Oz supersport and superbike champion racing WSS) or even Casey Stoner, I don't see a Pro Twin adding any benefit whatsoever to their early careers. The trick seems to be to get them onto a proper racebike to learn proper race skills as soon as possible.

Looking at grids in Oz the supersport and superbike fields are bulging, with many club meets having to run multiple classes for different skill levels. Compare that to NZ where we struggle for numbers with only 13-14 entries at a premier national event, 3 of whom are from overseas. I don't see Pro Twins helping to reverse this and instead I think we need to encourage racers onto the international standard classes of 600-1000.

answering for myself, I would love nothing more than to race a super bike (this is my goal) but at the moment I dont want to a tyre eater that is a 1000cc or supersport racer. I could afford to, but as RT has alluded to, due to NZ's relative low pay rates and high taxation, I would be sharing space under the bridge with homeless George, wrapt in cardboard, hugging a fresh road kill for a hottie to keep warm if I was to go down the superbike route. Even supersport bikes need plenty of fresh rubber on them to keep them at the pointy end and honestly I would rather spend the $300-500 needed per round for a set of tyres on dirty girls and beer, itll be more fun, lets face it.

Also, I am team manager, head mechanic, bike cleaner and head rider when Im out racing, I cant be arsed swappping tyres or fixing a tempermental bike. I just wanna hit the start button and race. Max fun for minimum outlay, that why we all got into bikes isnt it? My pro-twin is running used tyres and they should last at least a couple of rounds of races

I dont have mum and dad buying me stuff or offering assistance or any direst sponsership. Im just here learning what I need to do in order to become a faster racer without the distractions of the faster bikes.

When Im either a) fast enough to draw the welcome attention of sponsership or b) wealthier enough to fund my entry into the cheque book racing of supersport and superbike racing I will be running in a class where great financial backing is not a neccessity.

Im too big for 125, dont have the inclination to race a bucket, classics or post classic bikes have no appeal what so ever for this 25yr old and cant be stuffed playing with a 400cc f3 racer. Pro-twins is the logical step for myself and many who want cheap and fun racing.

Peace out.

Kyle

[slowpoke]

Oo oo I know! 125GP

I don't agree with what you have said re pro twins. It is a really good, controlled and cheap way to get into racing. The problem with F3 is that the bikes are old and the list of modifications required for a "fast" bike is too long for the beginner racer to carry out and fund.

There are other cheaper forms of bike racing already in place, especially if you are only just getting into it. Who said mods are necessary, a beginner is hardly going to be competitive anyway. As for old maintenance intensive bikes, we won't talk about 125's eh, LOL

That gixxer thou you use as an example is a waste of time for anyone wanting to be competitive. It may be ok at club level (could possibly win with a very good rider), but at nationals you're wasting your time. Then you've got the tyre bill, one set a weekend pretty much the norm. 600's are the same, yes you can start on a bike that is ok for 12k but even if you're casey stoner you probably aren't going to be able to win on it. You're gonna need a budget of 50k+ to challenge the front of the pack.

That Gixxer would easily be the fastest Vic Club bike out there and apart from Stroudie/Shirriffs and the Bernard bikes there wouldn't be much that was quicker nationally. Shirriffs turns up to a Manfield Vic Club round on his 600 and blows the handful of superbikes into the weeds, that's how much genuine talent and skill can overcome... having the latest and greatest is not the magic bullet to success. Same goes for Jay Lawrence last year when he munted his old Kwaka and borrowed a bog stock R6 for the Manfield round of the Nationals and finished top four (from memory) in the last race.

I think in the end it all comes down to winning. A beginner with a limited budget hasn't got a shit show at winning in superbikes or supersport. But they could go and spend 10k on a SV650 and take out the local club champs in their first attempt. Not to mention the racecraft and setup skills they will learn from the close racing which can be carried on to superbikes/sport if they can get the funding to go further.

I dunno, I guess we'll agree to disagree, but I reckon having a competitive machine is one thing but riders have got to be honest with themselves and take a look in the mirror before they start winging about lack of equity. I just look at the lack of numbers coming through to challenge the old stagers in the premier classes and I don't see Pro Twins or F3 addressing this.

[FROSTY:Me]

Oo oo I know! 125GP

I don't agree with what you have said re pro twins. It is a really good, controlled and cheap way to get into racing. The problem with F3 is that the bikes are old and the list of modifications required for a "fast" bike is too long for the beginner racer to carry out and fund.

I think in the end it all comes down to winning. A beginner with a limited budget hasn't got a shit show at winning in superbikes or supersport. But they could go and spend 10k on a SV650 and take out the local club champs in their first attempt. Not to mention the racecraft and setup skills they will learn from the close racing which can be carried on to superbikes/sport if they can get the funding to go further.

Dude sorry but you are way out of date.
The Majority of F3 bikes at the pointy end are twins with the odd highly tuned 4 -reliablinity at the pointy end is not a moot point with most bikes under 5 years old.
Before saying Pro twins is the "cheap alternative" again do a comparison between the cost of building a F3 bike for the pointy end and a pro twins bike -there is no way you are gonna build a winning pro twins bike for under 10k.-unless you buy a wreck for 4k to base the build on.
RT just clearly stated-1k minimum for a rear shock and ohh no front shocks couldnt be done for under 1k
just do an add up of the parts needed and add that to the price of a base bike

Again--my argument-make em look factory,restrict mods to the basic safety requirements -suspension is it really and fit aftermarket bits that LOOK stock for crash damageable components.

OR--kick the twins outs F3 --but I think F3 would then die

[GSVR]

Doesn't matter what shocks an SV has it still won't wear tyres like a superbike.

What shocks did the Harley Sportsters run when the had that series? When Tim Gibbes had the rent a racer series what preparation did Brian Bernard do to prepare/maintain the bikes.

I just put an old carbed SV shock onto my injected SV and becuase its around 5mm longer. The difference to the way the bike steers around corners is so much better. Of course this could have also been achieved by fitting shorter dogbones. Both options almost no cost.

As for wearing out tyres. The slicks I have have done a couple of trackdays (way more use than a clubmeet) and I reacon I'll get at least 2 more.

If everyone in the field spends 2 grand on suspension they might all go a bit faster. If everyone in the field spends nothing maybe a couple of grossly overweight people may be upset but hey they can go on a diet.

A mistake I made with my bike was having too soft suspension. This only became obvious to me after riding two other race prepared SVs.

Jumping off my SV when it had a GSXR frontend to the Standard SV frontend was also interesting. The brakes as you have to squeeze them alot harder and you lose all the delicate feel of the better GSXR brakes.

Reason why a Hyosung would not be a good choice of ProTwin bike IMO is its brakes and theres no fix within the Protwin rules.

What makes ProTwins great is the fact they are different to 600s and 1000s. If you want to jump on a 600 and have a crashing good time go right ahead.

And slowpoke one of the better 600 riders at the moment Kyle Key did alot of his learning on an SV and a Motard bike so how does that fit into your theory?

[FROSTY:Me]

answering for myself, I would love nothing more than to race a super bike (this is my goal) but at the moment I dont want to a tyre eater that is a 1000cc or supersport racer. I could afford to, but as RT has alluded to, due to NZ's relative low pay rates and high taxation, I would be sharing space under the bridge with homeless George, wrapt in cardboard, hugging a fresh road kill for a hottie to keep warm if I was to go down the superbike route. Even supersport bikes need plenty of fresh rubber on them to keep them at the pointy end and honestly I would rather spend the $300-500 needed per round for a set of tyres on dirty girls and beer, itll be more fun, lets face it.

Also, I am team manager, head mechanic, bike cleaner and head rider when Im out racing, I cant be arsed swappping tyres or fixing a tempermental bike. I just wanna hit the start button and race. Max fun for minimum outlay, that why we all got into bikes isnt it? My pro-twin is running used tyres and they should last at least a couple of rounds of races

I dont have mum and dad buying me stuff or offering assistance or any direst sponsership. Im just here learning what I need to do in order to become a faster racer without the distractions of the faster bikes.

When Im either a) fast enough to draw the welcome attention of sponsership or b) wealthier enough to fund my entry into the cheque book racing of supersport and superbike racing I will be running in a class where great financial backing is not a neccessity.

Im too big for 125, dont have the inclination to race a bucket, classics or post classic bikes have no appeal what so ever for this 25yr old and cant be stuffed playing with a 400cc f3 racer. Pro-twins is the logical step for myself and many who want cheap and fun racing.

Peace out.

Kyle

Ill throw a curve ball atya--what if the pro twins rules were as I suggested--and a 75hp limit so motors werent getting over stressed
wouldnt that make for CHEAPER racing at the base level?

[GSVR]

Before saying Pro twins is the "cheap alternative" again do a comparison between the cost of building a F3 bike for the pointy end and a pro twins bike -there is no way you are gonna build a winning pro twins bike for under 10k.-unless you buy a wreck for 4k to base the build on.

Just ask Deano what his cost?

Jarrod Wintle what he paid for Kyle Keys old bike.

David Cookes bike seemed competitive and I bet if you offered him considerably less than 10 grand he'd snap at it.

And building a pointy end F3 bike? I don't even want to go there as it might be a sensitive subject for some.
How much have you and Jill spent on your engine rebuilds? Your lucky as yours haven't gone bang yet!

The truth is you could build a ProTwin very cheaply with second hand fairings and components and put a good rider on it and it will win races. It may not look a million dollars.

[t3mp0r4ry nzr]

Ill throw a curve ball atya--what if the pro twins rules were as I suggested--and a 75hp limit so motors werent getting over stressed
wouldnt that make for CHEAPER racing at the base level?

I agree 100%. would make for very cheap and close racing :>

but as I have stated I have built one up for $1400 and it should be competitive with the right riding. Im sure Carl Morgon could jump on it and still do similar times to his super fast nationals times. But yes, reducing the number of mods as per your suggestion would make this entry level racing less dire to the wallet in the initial build stage.

Of interest though, Carl Morgon didnt run emulators in the forks and used a gsxr1000 spec WP shock that Ray Clee had kicking around, with old fairings, so his build was budget too, just goes to show what can be done with the SV's with awesome riding!

kyle

[Cleve]

Frosty your long and old go at the horsepower restrictions just isn't possible or realistic in my opinion. If road race stewards aren't even sure of the rules at one circuit (see an earlier thread) how on earth can we expect every circuit and bike club around the country to have equal ability and knowledge to monitor this?
Also the argument against aftermarket shocks for the class based on cost just doesn't wash. A 2nd hand ohlins vs price of a rebuild of standard shock would be negligible in the total amount spent over a season. I mean a trailer could cost more than an ohlins shock. Then as RT has so wisely stated (as he often does) the number of reasons to go for an aftermarket shock even if the cost were a bigger factor would still argue in favour of allowing them.
I would prefer PT's to allow front end suspension swops as well (from road based models only to keep costs low - surely a 2nd hand ex GSXR front end would costs about as much as a major rebuild? And have better brakes?!) I also don't see the need to have "factory look" in PT. One of the things I like about F3 is the many varied styles of SV out there. Personality and an individuality of some sort...
In other words my preference for PT is F3 without the major engine mods (on production based twins of 650cc).

The answer for the Pro Twins/F3 place in NZ racing appears to be the same regardless what the question was in the first place.
Do you see Pro Twins as a class for young up and comers to learn their craft (overtaking and beating other riders on similar spec machinery)? Perhaps for a season between 125GP and 600 SP?
Do you see PT as a cheap and cheerful fairly hassle free national class to retire to or have fun in?
Do you see hordes of similar spec machinery in tightly contested battles being interesting for spectators and riders themselves?

Yes to all the above?

One of reasons for keeping F3 going (in tandem with PT) is for the "one off" bike to be built. For the No. 8 wire kiwi ingenuity type to go forth and produce. Mind you lately in F3 there does seem to be a lack of that...
(Where is the, as Gavin HDT boy once suggested to me, R6 sleeved down to 450cc or the Aprilia supermotard motor in a 125 frame etc etc??)

In F3 we have a class that is currently dominated by SV's (in numbers and top finishing results). It is not the fault of the SV and they shouldn't be punished or blamed for it as some tend to do. Imagine if Suzuki had a 2008 GSXR 400 or Yamaha built an R4! AND Suzuki never built the SV. Then the closest competition from a Vtwin 650 in F3 would be a Honda Bros!!

Keep the debate coming...

[Keystone19]

How much have you and Jill spent on your engine rebuilds? Your lucky as yours haven't gone bang yet!

Actually not a hell of a lot more than it would have cost me to just have the engine freshened up.

I now have one of the fastest F3 bikes on the circuit. Its not the bike that's a problem, its the rider!

I hope it will go to someone who can really ride it at the pointy end.

I will be running a protwin that will be both my road bike and my race bike using the same tyres etc. I just can't afford to run two bikes and race another national series or even a club series after this season. Or perhaps I should word that as I choose to spend some of my money on other things.

But I do not intend to give up racing nor do I intend to give up conitinuing to develop myself as a rider and racer. In fact, I think a return to a bog standard bike (plus allowed suspension mods) will do more for my riding than my souped up SV.

I agree with you Gary, it doesn't have to be an expensive class.