Who Was The Last Rider To Win An Official Meaningful Race On An Upright Engine, And Where?

[foamfence 2,917]

I think you are right there the riders need to slow down. Some of them are so out of control of the bikes that it brings your heart into your mouth to watch them. It is just a case of how as the least nerve and can wind the trottle to the max and stay there the longest.

I can never remember riders in the 70's and 80's leaping arouns the track as if they are on a bronko but I may be wrong and just forget.

The way the riders are getting injured these days is getting far to often with at least 2 cases of brain damage at the end of last season and the beging of this. The speed they go is bound to make the accidents worse than they ever where. One of the worst I remember seeing in the 70's was at Weymouth when 2 riders went into the fencing on the straight, one was thrown clear, the other poor lad hid the fence and the handlebars went into his stomach. But accidents like that where far and a lot fewer than now.

Yes there were definitely less serious injuries then and no air fences either.

[miro 9]

I believe Wal rode a Douglas. They had an engine with one forward and one backward horizontal cylinders. There were also some riders using Rudge 4 valve engines, although it was several decades before the Neil Street 4 valves came into being.

 

Phillips used a Rudge and the Rudge was the inspiration behind the all conquering JAP, and the argument was settled between the upright engine and the low slung Douglas. He advocated lay down engines and a few were made here and there over the years though I don't know if he actually made any himself or rode one. Off subject he also made a fuel injector that was sold by Hagon and some Speedway riders used them, I saw Peter Collins try one on a Weslake at Hackney in a second half.

[foamfence 2,917]

 

Phillips used a Rudge and the Rudge was the inspiration behind the all conquering JAP, and the argument was settled between the upright engine and the low slung Douglas. He advocated lay down engines and a few were made here and there over the years though I don't know if he actually made any himself or rode one. Off subject he also made a fuel injector that was sold by Hagon and some Speedway riders used them, I saw Peter Collins try one on a Weslake at Hackney in a second half.

You are right. I got the engines wrong. I did see a very early picture of Ron Johnson on a Douglas.

[FAST GATER 852]

It would appear that a return to upright engines would have an immediate effect in slowing the bikes down( due to the gravity effect on the engine) and make it harder for the riders to enter corners at the speed they are at the moment .There would appear no reason that the laydown engines could not be adapted to go in upright frames thus using up the existing stock of these engines and giving existing users time to move over to a more standardised unit .It would not be unreasonable ( a word not known to s/way it would appear) for there to be a timescale of 3yrs for this to happen as i would image any rider would have a change of engine unit in this time what ever level they compete at.It would also give Jawa time to produce a new engine unit and GM to protect their current business if onlry Briggo & Co were attracted to this element of the sport instead of the infamous" dirt deflector " I live in hope .

Edited May 30, 2014 by FAST GATER

[spinkox 37]

IF you have 4 engines, made to exactly to the same spec, tolerances and materials, would they perform identically?

It doesnt work with children. . .

[Vince 9,454]

_{I can't see that changing to upright engines would do a thing apart from cost money and cause more injuries. The engines have been improved and developed so would make the same power, the riders have learned to ride in the modern style and enter corners harder and would continue to ride in that way, tracks have evolved to suit modern bikes and nobody has the money to spend on shale to change that. Added to that there will be some significant outlay in changing engines plus throwing away all the frames and forks while Jawa and the others may or may not re-tool to make uprights so the new frames will be more expensive.}

 

_{All for something that might slow things down but then again might not.}

 

_{If you want to save money and create an equal playing field then to my way of thinking you have to either standardise engines or the ancillaries that are put on them. My opinion is that if you standardise engines it will be a nightmare to police and inevitably some engines will be better than others. If you standardise carbs, ignitions and clutches there is a better chance that you could come up with something that would make excessive tuning worthless, would be relatively easy to police and create a more equal playing field. As for slowing things down, I just can't see it will ever happen by more than the smallest fraction unless you put everybody on 125's or something.}

[FAST GATER 852]

_{I can't see that changing to upright engines would do a thing apart from cost money and cause more injuries. The engines have been improved and developed so would make the same power, the riders have learned to ride in the modern style and enter corners harder and would continue to ride in that way, tracks have evolved to suit modern bikes and nobody has the money to spend on shale to change that. Added to that there will be some significant outlay in changing engines plus throwing away all the frames and forks while Jawa and the others may or may not re-tool to make uprights so the new frames will be more expensive.}

 

_{All for something that might slow things down but then again might not.}

 

_{If you want to save money and create an equal playing field then to my way of thinking you have to either standardise engines or the ancillaries that are put on them. My opinion is that if you standardise engines it will be a nightmare to police and inevitably some engines will be better than others. If you standardise carbs, ignitions and clutches there is a better chance that you could come up with something that would make excessive tuning worthless, would be relatively easy to police and create a more equal playing field. As for slowing things down, I just can't see it will ever happen by more than the smallest fraction unless you put everybody on 125's or something.}

 

I take your points on board but slowing down by any amount even fractions may be woth it surely lap times have not dropped by that much in the last 20yrs have they but the cost in money and rider injury to gain have and this is unacceptable IMO.

[Vince 9,454]

I agree that something needs to change but going back to uprights isn't any sort of sensible answer imo.

 

Is it really the bikes or speed (the actual speed difference is miniscule between the upright era and today) that causes more injuries (if there are more)? Not in my opinion, it's the way riders push harder in every race and given the comments on here if a rider plays safe the spectators are never going to accept any less on that score.

 

Whatever happened to the rev limiter? To my mind there is a huge opportunity there to make small changes to the limit year on year that could eventually result in far less money spent on engines.

[Shale Searcher 1,264]

Yes, what happened to the rev limiter? weren't they being trialled last season? How did it work? I cannot work out a safe method of limiting revs, surely if you are mid corner and you gave it a bag full of throttle, would the engine splutter and slow causing another bag full of grip which would fire you in a straight line to the fence? if you were flat out and bordering the rev limiter, how would you get the back end to break-out on a very grippy track without the extra burst of acceleration of the rear wheel? Again you end up spearing the air fence! Again!!

[Vince 9,454]

No different to when you reach the limit now, every engine gets to a point where it dies off. Big advantage to my way of thinking would be the possibility of going back to heavier flywheels and engines producing more torque which I think would be more predictable and therefore safer.

[Shale Searcher 1,264]

No different to when you reach the limit now, every engine gets to a point where it dies off. Big advantage to my way of thinking would be the possibility of going back to heavier flywheels and engines producing more torque which I think would be more predictable and therefore safer.

They would be much better on wet/deep tracks, wouldn't you agree?

[Vince 9,454]

I would think they would go a long way to resolving the issues with the silencers as well.

[spinkox 37]

The advantage of a laydown is that the moving parts are not fighting against gravity, allowing them to rev higher.

Been thinking about this - Is this REALLY true?? - even as a generalisation?? On an upright you would have the benefit of gravity as the piston went down. I would have thought it was more to do with bore and stroke etc.

 

If speed and revs are a problem on modern bikes - what about enforcing a smaller diameter carb??

[ryecastle 2]

Andrew Silver holds the fastest time ever at stoke speedway {59.1} and was riding a stand up in 1987 and was never beaten by a laydown.

[weatherwatcher 664]

I had the great pleasure in the 70's of owning a 1932 500cc Rudge single, what a remarkable engine that was large bore long stroke. You would never get away with how the piston was held in place these days, no retaining rings holding in the gudion pin it was just pushed through the piston and at each end was a piece of copper that ran up the inside of the barrel.

Owned a couple more great British bikes a A.J.S 650cc twin and a Mk 2 B.S.A Spitfire, it was the U.S.A specification model quite rare over here. One engine that still makes me shudder is the 500cc Matchless single, it got its name from the sound a thumper when on tick over a beutiful sound that we hear far less these days.

The only one to keep it going in a true British tradition is the Royal Enfield Bullet.

I am sure that with modern technology they would be able to come up with a great speedway upright engine..