Firstly, as a card carrying pedant, Gary is technically correct in stating that as dispensation had been given it cannot have been cheating. Whether dispensation should have been given is an entirely different point and one that I don't feel that I have the knowledge to cast my opinion on.

Just thinking out loud about the post made by Lucifer's Apprentice. 8 litres of fuel per lap would just about (maybe with luck) enable three laps before stopping to fill a 24 litre tank. I know he says the alleged usage is 'over 8 litres' but that begs the question how much over? Would the weight of extra fuel negate the deemed advantage of going further before stopping?

Finally, to agree with Warrior, going three laps before stopping offers no advantage in a four lap race over a 'two and two' lap strategy. In each case there is one standing start lap, one lap coming into the pits, one lap exiting the pits and one flying lap. All that changes is the flying lap is either on lap 2 or lap 4.

The  standard Paton tank is 22L, so you could go 2 + 2 laps with that, though I think the Winfield crew has always gone for 3 + 1. Curiously the tank apparently had RYAN written on the bottom !

(12-09-2016, 04:57 PM)HammerHead Wrote: Firstly, as a card carrying pedant, Gary is technically correct in stating that as dispensation had been given it cannot have been cheating. Whether dispensation should have been given is an entirely different point and one that I don't feel that I have the knowledge to cast my opinion on.

Just thinking out loud about the post made by Lucifer's Apprentice. 8 litres of fuel per lap would just about (maybe with luck) enable three laps before stopping to fill a 24 litre tank. I know he says the alleged usage is 'over 8 litres' but that begs the question how much over? Would the weight of extra fuel negate the deemed advantage of going further before stopping?

Finally, to agree with Warrior, going three laps before stopping offers no advantage in a four lap race over a 'two and two' lap strategy. In each case there is one standing start lap, one lap coming into the pits, one lap exiting the pits and one flying lap. All that changes is the flying lap is either on lap 2 or lap 4.

You are forgetting that if you pit on the 3rd you can just splash and dash, therefore less time in the pit and time gained.

Also if you knew your machine was marginal on fuel you'd ride it more conservatively to make sure you got to the finish. However if fuel wasn't an issue you would (and they did) simply nail it.

I presume that all this "cheating" has been going on since the start of the CLASSIC TT and only this year has attention been brought to it  or have the rules change this year?

Sadlly cheating has been going on in all forms of motorsport since the start- anyone who doesn't recognise that doesn't know the sport and, particularly in classic competition, the line between cheating and interpretation of the rules has become blurred by the need to get a full grid of competitive entrants.

I posted on the old forum at the time of the MGP hijack that DEDs plan to make the classics a 'Goodwood on the rock' would only succeed with the injection of vast sums of cash by both the entrants and the Gov.  Many of the coveted classic bikes weren't very reliable when new and the wear of a few laps of the Mountain would break most of them. 

At the time the attendance at the MGP had been growing steadily by about 7% average a year and I think it cost about £1.5m of gov help.  I think that the attendance figures have continued to rise at the same rate over the last 4 years but I've not seen any published cost for the 'Classic TT' and I doubt we will as it would be unbelievable if it does not cost more to put on - its now a full blown prawn sandwich event.

From the very start they had to have some very flexible rules to get anyone to bring fast bikes forward and the rise of the Bandit engined XR69 and a moving target of regulations made it very difficult to invest in fielding anything competitive, the introduction of the 750s appeared to offer new blood but thoughts of anyone entering shedloads of rc30s were always wishful thinking - I had bought an FZR 1000 hoping the cut off date would have moved on a couple of years but basically they bi-passed them. for some reason the regs for the 750 aren't as flexible and staying within the law appears to be fairly expensive

To fair the classic is now really a parade lap of loose replicas ridden by TT racers and everyone is filling their boots, but the area of dispensations needs to be sorted out - when the classic started the website had an eligibillity section where one could ask the technical stewards whether what you were planning was legal and everyone could see it - some of the problems with the xr69s occured when different people were given different interpretations. I was stood on the grid in 2012? for the start of the junior superbike (250 TZs) only to see 'top people' using radial brake calipers which weren't allowed (they were a year later).


The fuel tank issue is a case in point, both the bikes are made by top teams who have raced there before and the idea that two tanks should be accidentally made too big is most bizzarre and claiming that modifying a tank on a £125k bike would cause the teams hardship is ridiculous - a couple of hours work for a good man £300? or some rough bashing underneath could have solved it - a certain ex Honda and Kawasaki TT winner in the paddock could even do it as he crossed the finish line!! 
While I agree that the current CoC is by far the best in my 37 years memory I feel there were other alternatives open to them if he were convinced they just couldn't fix it.  There is definiitely an advantage in a 3+1 strategy but Gary could have removed that advantage -"ok lads have your illegal tank but you must still stop on lap 2" or alternately they could have fitted the fuel test tickles used in other forms of motorsports  to reduce capacity - they are illegal on the Island but they could have had a dispensation and the team would have no advantage from the illegal tank. I would also love to know how many other bikes had dispensations and for what - its wrong that someone should risk their life trying to catch and pass something that may have illegal components and doen't know that they are at a disadvantage.

The classic is now in a very difficult position, nothing on the horizon will catch a tuned 1200 bandit and nobody is going to spend shedloads on a 750 not to win and I know several entrants who have had enough. What is certain is that the rules for next      year need to be set very shortly and left unchanged for a couple of years and, most importantly, ALL applications for dispensation need to be made public and submitted no later than the TT - if you are stupid enough to do something outside the rulles after that date then you should be out - nobody realistically wakes up in August and decides they need to put a fireblade engine in a goldwing frame and call it an RC181! 

long live the Manx!

You say nothing on the horizon will catch a tuned 1200 bandit, but the next Suzuki exactly the same as Michaels was 5th so that's 3 over the horizon that has done so and 2 of them were legal 750s. if Michael was not on that bike it most likely would not win and most of this winging would not be happening. can people not take these bikes for what they are, they are a work of art, you would have to be blind not to like them when looking at one and they are hand built as a race bike not a converted road bike.

I thought this was supposed to be a relaxed an entertaining event where we could see old and nearly old bikes ridden by today`s TT riders. In my opinion to much bull , stop spoiling the spectators enjoyment with all this rubbish. If you don`t want certain entrants there just say so, We can have a very competitive race like the electric bike race where there are only 2 contenders . Really riveting viewing and listening I don`t think.

My two pence...

I don't know the facts of how big the tanks were etc., but I do know a little about Patons and fuel consumption in the Isle of Man!

A Paton can easily do 3 laps without stopping or fear of running out. Dad (Steve) did the race non-stop in 2006 with a race average of just under 105mph and two other Patons (Dave Matravers and Mick Moreton) did the same this year with no issues. Our tank is 23 litres and has been measured many times. We have always found that the faster the lap time in the island, the better the fuel consumption - I believe this is a combination of reduced running time and less opening and closing of the throttle.

So I don't believe that any advantage was gained in this instance, as both bikes stopped to take on fuel, or that the result would have been any different if they had marginally smaller tank capacities. I can see no reason you would purposely fit an oversized tank on a Paton, unless it enabled you to do the race non-stop.

I am glad that they have started stripping again though and think that these events will ensure riders all through the field keep a closer eye on their own machines eligibility from now on. I am sure that the teams in question will remedy the issue if they return in the future and that this dispensation won't need to be called upon for a second year!

I'm sorry to hear that you've decided to call it a day Allan - you can certainly look back proudly on your road racing career and achievments!

David

Many thanks David, most informative. All true classic race supporters respect your family's contribution to the sport and I wholeheartedly agree, I too can see no reason to use oversize tanks! So why knowingly fit oversize tanks?