why are 2and 4 strokes in the same class?

[willieworld]

good luck to all at bonneville--one question for you naked riders--the rule book says---7.F.11 Open class  1. No streamlining is permitted in the open motorcycle class. Streamlining is defined as any devices or objects forward of the rider that has the apparent purpose of directing , limiting , or controlling airflow around the motorcycle or rider.----- wouldnt that include the front fender ??----------willie buchta

[kiwi]

I would have thought almost all modern bikes front fenders are designed to streamline the airflow around the wheel and fork legs, and therefore wouldn't meet those rule requirements.

[narider]

This is Land Speed Racing. A venue for the fastest vehicles on the planet. If you want a level playing field go run bracket classes at the drag strip.

Instead of trying to change the rules how about just following them?

Nobody wants to level the playing field.

If nobody wanted to level the playing field we'd have 50cc Flathead Gas Sit-on Motorcycles running against AA Blown Fuel Streamliners.

I agree that some are looking to change the rules to their advantage (there always will be), but I think most are just looking for better clarification on existing rules as they get looked at through different members eyes over the years (and rightfully so if there's an agreed upon or known lack of clarity to an existing rule).
Progress they call it.... not that it always is.

I agree with the "build to the rules" philosophy, but that doesn't mean we should all keep our thoughts (well thought out or not) to ourselves. 

The 5th paragraph on the very first page of the SCTA Rules and Records book starts with "The rule change process is an ongoing one". If you continue reading from there it goes on to state the process in which that happens formally, this (discussions on LR.com and other places) are the way to work towards whether enough members think there is reason to take it to that formal process or not.

Unfortunately, most want to change or clarify something without first taking time to find out it's history that got it to where it is. And then just as unfortunate, there are those that think no changes should ever be made (which can cause a restriciton in new technology or possibly an unfair advantage to existing members and even safety advancement not making it in). A nice casual discussion process like this and then a formal process like laid out in the rulebook is a productive way to make those decisions. Looking at the lines, the speeds and the safety records at the meets... I'd say when it works, it works pretty well.
Todd

PS: How 'bout them 2-strokes? 

[narider]

have any 2 strokes been over 200 mph?

Here's one sit-on I'm personally aware of, (not to mention the 2-strokes that Don Vesco ran over 200 with in a liner):




Todd

[DahMurf]

Thank you sir!

I thought I remembered that at least one had been over 200 but my mind is currently overwhelmed in packing details!

Deb

[racer x]

Eric, I think this is an excellent post and question you brought up! If we don't understand, we're allowed to ask why or why not,,, as long as we're willing to either accept and abide by the answer or offer a different outlook and solution to the powers that be.
Todd

Thanks Todd
 Playing buy the rules is what I am all about . I did not mean to open a can of worms. I was just trying to figure out what category I would fit in if I went to Bonniville. I could find an open category to "set"a record. but I have a personal goal of getting my D license with a 250 fourstroke 125mph  has never bin done on a 250 4 stroke. But 160 on a two stroke is easier to do anyhow.I just hope the powers that be understand I am thankful for any opportunity to run anything.
Eric

[landracing]

Re: "you should have picked a better bike"
You say that as if it were something more than your personal opinion.
Why don't we just compare bank statements?

Really have you seen my piece of crap bike...  Liquid fools gold...

Jon

[Glen]

Jon, is your piece of crap going to be at speed week

[Nortonist 592]

In 1967 Honda had a six cylider DOHC 4 valve 250cc 4 stroke GP bike and a five cylinder DOHC 4 valve 125cc 4 stroke GP bike.  At the same time Yamaha had 125cc and 250cc vee four 2 stroke GP bikes.  Suzuki was developing a 50cc three cylinder 2 stroke GP bike.  At that time the top speeds of both marques in the 125cc and 250cc classes was about the same.  The problem was, at the time, that these were factory bikes and unobtainable by other racers.  For 1968 the F.I.M. changed the rules as the the number of cylinders and the number of gears each class could have.  Honda stopped GP racing and Yamaha went on to develop their 2 strokes (successfully).   In the mid 70s MV Augusta was the last 4 stroke still racing in GP.  From 1975 until the F.I.M. changed the premier class back to 4 strokes the 2 strokes dominated and were developed at what seemed a frantic pace.  During this period 4 strokes literally languished, stagnated, call it what you like.  It appears that the 2 strokes inherent pollution has caused a return to 4 strokes.  At their peak 500cc 2 stroke GP machines were capable of well over 200 mph.

There are a number of small capacity 4 strokes availabe around the world but very few here.  We are a nation of bigger is better and anything under 600cc is not really a motorcycle.  A number of attempts have been made to import small capacity bikes but they have never sold in quantities to make such a venture viable.  As I said earlier I am grateful to the SCTA for having a pushrod class.  Otherwise I would be a spectator.  I don't think the 2 strokes need a seperate class.  As they are a dying breed and the major manufacturers a developing 4 stroke now its just a matter of time before the 4 strokes will be faster and 2 stroke guys will be howling for a seperate class.  

But the original question as to why 2 strokes a in the same class as OHC motors still hasn't been answered.  But for now in the smaller classes 2 strokes will be the only way to go.

[desotoman]

Maybe this will help define why 2 and 4 strokes are identified as an otto cycle. You be the judge.

Tom G.

http://biotsavart.tripod.com/ice.htm

[narider]

It doesn't help me much Tom, unless I'm missing something in there. It just looks like someone's school paper to me.... and unfortunatley we didn't get to see the grade recieved or the instructor's credentials in relation to the paper if that's so.

I'm glad to see the reference material shown though, but they are all one's I've read previously and a couple even show the same thing I mentioned. IE: The Otto cycle consists of four strokes of the piston for each explosion.  Ref: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/OttoCycle.html

even moreso with the above referencees, I am still not convinced that the Otto Cycle encompasses the 2-stroke design... (then again I'm not the one that needs convinced, and I'm pretty sure I have less credentials then anyone on any of these websites including everyone reading this).

Thanks for the help in more literature and care of how this is looked at Tom,
Todd

[Stainless1]

Jon, is your piece of crap going to be at speed week

If he stays off the internet and works on it.... 

[DahMurf]

Jon, is your piece of crap going to be at speed week

If he stays off the internet and works on it.... 

[desotoman]

Todd,

Maybe we are putting too much emphasiss on two cycle vs. four cycle when in fact the Otto process is the same.

Tom G.

3.5 The Internal combustion engine (Otto Cycle)
[VW, S & B: 9.13]
The Otto cycle is a set of processes used by spark ignition internal combustion engines (2-stroke or 4-stroke cycles). These engines a) ingest a mixture of fuel and air, b) compress it, c) cause it to react, thus effectively adding heat through converting chemical energy into thermal energy, d) expand the combustion products, and then e) eject the combustion products and replace them with a new charge of fuel and air.

Here is a patent number for a two stroke Otto cycle engine.

Title:Two-stroke otto cycle engines.
Document Type and Number:United States Patent 4903482

[willieworld]

you read the headline but you didnt read the whole paper--nikelaus otto didnt patent the otto cycle motor someone else did but he was the one to make it work --the correct term for the otto cycle engine is " four stroke cycle " the correct term for the two stroke cycle engine is "atkinson cycle" named after the inventor--i think what most people are talking about when they say otto cyce is the internal combustion piston engine--and that includes the SCTA  willie buchta