Not a lot of info on the bike in that book. Emailed you a copy of what is in there.[/QUOTE]
"Non urinat in ventum" in this case someone most definitely is.
Is a sad fact that the dickheads who let the Paton 8v into the pre 72 class will probably allow this bike in too. Every time I get into a discussion about the legality of certain bikes from the classic period the builders and owners are dismissive and never offer any solid evidence that these bikes in their current configuration raced in period. They my offer a murky photo or some hearsay only, unfortunately those that really know are no longer with us.
Given the 80plus HP the Paton's are currently making don't you think they would have done so much better in period, success breeds sales does it not. The 500cc Paton was a stretched 350 specially ordered by Hannah, no mention of 8 valves in period press releases, no mention of 8v in Italian press in 1968 either = the bike didn't exist. If you search the internet you can find the odd snip of info but its usually modern text against a murky old period photo.
Anyway the whole classic race scene is fast becoming a farce as the race classes aren't representative of way bikes developed or the common CC's of bike production of the day. For example the 650cc twin was the backbone of bike production from the 1950's to the late 60's. BUT the class that these bikes have to race in is 750cc pre 72 so they are up against Tridents, Honda 4's which are 20 years younger! The modern superbike class like wise as the CC limit is 1200cc when the class was never 1200cc but 1000cc up to 84 and 750cc after. In fact the unlimited class was outlawed after a very bad season which saw a lot of racers either killed or crippled on the roads and tracks of Europe.
I appreciate that competitors abide by the rules set by a race organisation but these rules always open to interpretation. But the fact is a GSXR engine of the bore and stroke config ridden by Dunlop at last years Classic TT didn't exist in 86 (cut off date). I guess when you add all of the interpretations together like wheel radius and rim width, later forks, later 4 pot callipers, wide track discs, later engines, programmable this and that, altered frames not as they were made originally with altered wheel base, head angles and cradle width for other engines - or rather there's nothing about this latest crop of "classic" race bikes that belongs in the period they are meant to represent. If the rules are up to 86 then that's the cut off, if made in Jan 87 it's illegal. End of. Or perhaps the "Classic Superbike" or "classic GP" class should be more accurately re named to the "New bikes made to look old" classes because that's exactly what they are.
Being a huge fan of motorcycle racing and classic racing in particular, sadly not involved as much as I would like to be, I am today finding classic racing boring and this is despite the fact that organisers relax the rules to get famous riders and increase the size of grids. The fact is Michael Dunlop would race a Rudge Multi if he was being paid 20k to do it. I find myself wandering around the paddock drawn to the original bikes like TZ350's and ignoring XR69's with FJ1100 or GSXR engines fitted, ignoring Rob North triples and looking at mid 60's Bonnies kitted out like Thruxton racers, original Manx or 7r! The sort of bikes that were raced all over the world and not this current crop of bullshit classic race bikes.
Now I have to admit to building replicas; 92 bore Manx with chrome bore, TR750's, F1 bikes from the 70's and 80's but nothing I build is out of period, geometry, engine config are all as they were available in period. In my opinion that's the way classics should be raced. Given the current trend and nothing changes I will build myself a G45 in magnesium with 8 valves and roller bearing crank or rather build a Paton inside the Matchless at least it will fit the silhouette rule.