Triumph 675 in LW classes!!!!????

[danch]

Until the performance of the triumph is actually known and not just speculation this whole thread is irrelevant.

Why? Is the CCS classification system based on performance indexing? When the Kawi went to 636, it slotted straight into middlewieght because the rules said 640cc - nobody waited to find out how much power it really made vs. how much it really weighed. The only difference here is that for some reason Kevin jumped the gun and added a rule to put this thing in lightweight - 675cc liquid cooled triple against 650cc liquid cooled twin- what do you think CAN make more power - unless we're talking performance indexing, what DOES make more power doesn't matter.

Just because a bike won't be competitive in the class it naturally fits in is no reason to put it a class down. If it isn't competitive against the bikes it's competing for sales with, who cares? By this logic the TT600 should have been a lightweight!

[TommyG]

Why? Is the CCS classification system based on performance indexing? When the Kawi went to 636, it slotted straight into middlewieght because the rules said 640cc - nobody waited to find out how much power it really made vs. how much it really weighed. The only difference here is that for some reason Kevin jumped the gun and added a rule to put this thing in lightweight - 675cc liquid cooled triple against 650cc liquid cooled twin- what do you think CAN make more power - unless we're talking performance indexing, what DOES make more power doesn't matter.

Just because a bike won't be competitive in the class it naturally fits in is no reason to put it a class down. If it isn't competitive against the bikes it's competing for sales with, who cares? By this logic the TT600 should have been a lightweight!

You make some good points. However, I have had a CCS license since 1990 and I have watched the rulebook change many times regarding bike classification/classes. Bikes that are legal in a class one year aren`t the next. Again, I am not pushing for the Triumph to run in lightweight. I just think that`s where it`ll end up. BTW I believe there is a rule that allows the change of class eligibility with 30 days notice(or something to that nature) so it`s feasible the bike starts out in one class and ends up in another!?

[K3 Chris Onwiler]

Please please please can I put a YZF600 engine stroked to 670cc in an FZR400 chassis and run lightweight?  Or stick an SV1000 motor in a 650 chassis?  Or run a superbike F2?  Or a Buell with unlimited mods?
SCCA car racing in the production classes holds an interesting lesson here.  By playing with weight, 5 decades of sportscars can compete in a given class, and the competition is fierce!  When you're watching the national championships and the lead pack consists of an MGA, a Miata, an RX7  A 280Z, and a Super 7, you're seeing some close, interesting racing.  Better yet, these racers don't have to throw away their ride every few years to stay in the hunt.
Imagine a run-whatcha-brung CCS class based on power-to-weight ratio, weight measured with the rider aboard in full gear.  It's been done in many other forms of racing.  Oh the joyful, cheap to build hotrods that could be created from outdated equipment for such a class!

[TommyG]

Please please please can I put a YZF600 engine stroked to 670cc in an FZR400 chassis and run lightweight?  Or stick an SV1000 motor in a 650 chassis?  Or run a superbike F2?  Or a Buell with unlimited mods?
SCCA car racing in the production classes holds an interesting lesson here.  By playing with weight, 5 decades of sportscars can compete in a given class, and the competition is fierce!  When you're watching the national championships and the lead pack consists of an MGA, a Miata, an RX7  A 280Z, and a Super 7, you're seeing some close, interesting racing.  Better yet, these racers don't have to throw away their ride every few years to stay in the hunt.
Imagine a run-whatcha-brung CCS class based on power-to-weight ratio, weight measured with the rider aboard in full gear.  It's been done in many other forms of racing.  Oh the joyful, cheap to build hotrods that could be created from outdated equipment for such a class!

+1   ;D

[bentforks]

triumph review http://www.phillipmccallen.com/daytona-675-report.html

[bentforks]

this just makes it more confusing http://www.racemotorcycles.com/cgi-bin/board/YaBB.pl?board=rules;action=display;num=1130468247

[oldguy]

triumph review http://www.phillipmccallen.com/daytona-675-report.html

OK, the guys a dealer. How would Triumph treat a dealership that wrote up a report that their new bike was a POS and rode like a turd?

[TommyG]

Exactly. I`ll hold out for roadracing world or someone similiar. Hopefully with a dyno test! Should be soon dontcha think?

[roadracer162]

Yes, my F2 is legal for lightweight f40. The reason I got last year for it not being legal in the other lightweight classes was because of the potential horsepower that can be achieved from it. I would assume the same reasoning would apply this year. That being said, I don't think the 675 should be classified as a lightweight based on the same principal.

Well my 630cc FZR breathing through flatslides, and as tested on the same dyno as the Thunderbike record holding lap at Daytona SV Superbike (with Michael Barnes aboard) apparently has less horsepwoer than the SV. But the Superbike SV can run the GT lights class. Potential power??

[Eric Kelcher]

FYI check the 06 rulebook that is where 675 will run

license renewal mailer was a proposal only

[clutch]

So its a MW Bike...good

[gpstar1]

Yep, its a MW bike alright. So theres nothing to worry about now.  ;)