BUB rules for 2012 regarding partial streamlining

[Koncretekid]

I heard a rumor that for 2012 the seat/tailpiece  partial streamlining rules will be changed to that similar to the SCTA and ECTA/LTA rules.  Basically, SCTA and others allow full tailpiece to extend 10" beyond the rear tire whereas BUB/AMA has required the tailpiece to be cut out from the rear axle back, and from the top of the rear tire down.  Can anyone verify this?  Important, since I'm building partial streamlining now and don't want to have to change it for BUB.

Tom

[nrhs sales]

You are correct but you are also wrong.   :-P

Yes they are going to allow full fairing and extended tails like you said but it is going to be a seperate "unlimited" class different from partial streamlined.

[55chevr]

Tom --- Really like the tailpiece.

[Koncretekid]

You are correct but you are also wrong.   :-P

Yes they are going to allow full fairing and extended tails like you said but it is going to be a seperate "unlimited" class different from partial streamlined.

Good God, Dan, does that mean a whole new plethora of classes - from 50cc to unlimited? Like A-UPS, or maybe even M-UPS, or both?  Sounds like some kind of new courier service.  Soon won't be enough room for all the letters and numbers on the bike.  Not to mention, longer lines because there will be more classes.
Tom 

[fredvance]

Will the SCTA legal long tail be FIM legal?

[Peter Jack]

Tom, why not build it so either a short or long end cap can just be fastened on with Dzus fasteners? I think it could be a pretty simple design.

Pete

[nrhs sales]

Tom,
The way I understand it is yes they will be all new classes. The reason for this is all the old records that were set by the old rules would probabaly be obliterated which would really not be fair to the current record holders.

[Koncretekid]

Pete,
I've considered that, but thought that perchance BUB might try to co-ordinate with SCTA and ECTA rules to make it easier to conform to all.  As it is, I'm trying to figure out how to split the fairing to  make it easy to remove without too many joints.

Dan,
SCTA and ECTA did not, apparently, worry about previous record holders, but I certainly see the point.  As Pete suggests, I could make it work both ways, and go for a record in both classes!  Gets complicated.
Tom

[dr j]

Dan,
SCTA and ECTA did not, apparently, worry about previous record holders, but I certainly see the point.  As Pete suggests, I could make it work both ways, and go for a record in both classes!  Gets complicated.
Tom

ECTA did worry about previous record holders which is why they waited until now to make the transition to the SCTA changed fairing rule.  Remember that ECTA has closed the Maxton Record book so it will be some type of clean slate at Ohio Mile.  So it is a perfect time to adopt any new rules that could affect speeds.  ECTA fairing rules I believe were the same as SCTA until SCTA chose to change them a few years ago.  I fully agree with you Koncretekid that it would be wonderful if all the venues had the same fairing rules so those of us that custom make them would have only one type to design.  So once again a big thank you goes out to ECTA for at least making two places the same again.

[wobblywalrus]

The method mentioned by Peter Jack is what I use.  The basic streamlining is eligible for FIM, AMA, and DLRA with minor and easy to make changes.

That tail section looks great.  How did you make the mold so quickly?   

[grumm441]

Soon won't be enough room for all the letters and numbers on the bike.  Not to mention, longer lines because there will be more classes.

As good a reason as any to make longer tailpieces legal
G

[Koncretekid]

One of the questions I am dealing with does not seem to be addressed in the new SCTA/ECTA/LTA rule on partially streamlined seat/tailpiece.  It now states that no part of the seat/tailpiece may be closer than 4 inches from the ground.  Since most bellypans are closer than 4", there has to be a transition up to 4" at some point.  The BUB rule currently reads as follows: "No streamlining behind the rear axel is permitted to be lower than the top rim of the rear wheel."  I would suggest to all organizations that this wording, or the contemplated wording as is the case for BUB,  be amended to read as follows: "No streamlining behind the rear axel is permitted to be lower than 4" from the ground." That would at least define where the 4" rule would apply.  I have to make a decision on this before I can resume work on my fairing.

Wobbly,
See my posting in my build diary as to the method we are using to make the new fairing.
Tom

[Old Scrambler]

Kid.........I think your mixing the BUB / AMA rules for Modified with those of Partial Streamlined............take a look at Tom Mellor's bike and note the differences (removable section behind the axle) when he changes from MPS to M..........I am listening and looking for all details regarding the 4" rule and the transition from bellypan to tail section when in PS class as I am planning to add PS to my Cub.

[Koncretekid]

Dennis,
What I'm comparing are the special construction (A Class) partially streamlined AMA/BUB rules (2011) with those of SCTA .  BUB is rumored (confirmed by Dan from NRHS ) to be changing to something similar to the SCTA rules in 2012.  They are very different, and allow you to run the tail section beyond the rear tire 10" and 4" from the ground; in other words, fully enclosing the rear tire.  The Forestall Racing bike that Bill Warner rode at Loring is an example, which I will post here for your information.  M class is different and I don't know the rules as well.
Tom

[Old Scrambler]

I'm glad your trying to get this sorted..................