OzVMX Forum
Clubroom => Competition => Topic started by: 211kawasaki on March 21, 2009, 08:42:27 PM
-
Hi Guys
as the eligilibty guy at the nationals I thought I would open up a Q&A thread if there are any questions; its safe to say that eligilibty will be enforced this year. In other words if its not right it wont pass.
Points of interest.
The CZ sproket issue is dead,
As is a 1975 CR125 in pre75, even if the rules do allow the 75 CR to compete in pre 78. Please dont bring your MX250B and enter it in pre 75 and dont enter your pre 75 bike in pre 78.
Pre 78 is the only class that is just for 75,76,77 bikes, none else.
No 1975 TMs in pre 75 race them in the pre 78 class.
There will always be a rider with a 78 front end on a 76 TT500 that the guy didnt know was a 78 front end, if you have one and you going to enter in pre 78 get a 77 front end. Its happened just about every year for 10 years - if there big forks ride in EVO.
If its a 75/76 KX250/400 with a modified rear end - dont bring it unless your entered in pre 78 and you have moved the shocks to the original positions.
MX series Yamahas should have pre 75 engines in the, a 78 DT motor or otherwise dosnt count as pre 75.
I will have the engine references to most bikes, not all but most. If its a follow on and its the exact same bike your fine.
Yes folks I have seen every one of these and lots more.
The Commission as scruteneers acts as a sub offical to the safety inspection, safety overules everything and the issues that relate to safety are not for the thread, my advice in this department is to read the GCRs now; not on the race day while trying to negociate a point you should have already known.
Dave T
-
Points of interest.
The CZ sproket issue is dead,
As is a 1975 CR125 in pre75, even if the rules do allow the 75 CR to compete in pre 78.
Good thread Dave, but can you clarify the 75 CR 125 issue please, are you saying it is or isn't allowed in pre 75???
-
Points of interest.
The CZ sproket issue is dead,
As is a 1975 CR125 in pre75, even if the rules do allow the 75 CR to compete in pre 78.
Good thread Dave, but can you clarify the 75 CR 125 issue please, are you saying it is or isn't allowed in pre 75???
NO It's not allowed!!! because Red paint is much faster than Green paint and he has a forking big stick! (Not Dick)
and a badge to The Commission as scruteneers acts as a sub offical of the official act of sub scuiteneers commisioning the act of sub scuteneering acting as the official that maked him super ooper dooper!
-
be very very nice, this man has the power :o ;D
thank goodness we just run a pre 75 ,no complications..
S&A WA
-
GMC
The 75 / 74 CR125 issue was around for a long while, the question of weather a CR125 with different fork tops, different pipe and an extra scavenge port made it somehow so much different that it shouldnt compete in Pre 75. The decision was that as the red color made no difference, you could change the pipe anyway and the way the fork springs are retained were considered so minor that it should be able to compete in pre 75. The extra scavange port is internal and although you can make out a 75 barrel if you look carefully it also was considerd so minor as to not matter.
Remember that the Commission dosnt make the decision the states do and based on the respondants it was a majority agreement that the bike was as close a follow on model we have and pretty much the same then it should be considered legal pre75.
There is still some who (believe it or not) want to argue that the bike shouldnt be allowed pre75.
I take the view that most pre 75 bikes are in short supply and something this close to the 74 model should be eligible - where as say a pre 74 TM125 and a 75 TM125 are sufficently different in the frame / swing arm to exclude them.
211
-
Thanks for clearing that up Dave, I thought that was the case, it was just your wording confused me.
Cheers,
Geoff
-
be very very nice, this man has the power :o ;D
The commission has no power, the states do. What the Commission does is to administer the requests for adjudication from the riders, clubs or states and formulate them into something that the state LCB can say yes or no to.
Its not about being nice to me; but after 21 years in VMX and 10 as the commission chair person Im trying to open a dialogue for any questions on eligibility that might assist the riders with their preparation for the National Championships.
211
-
be very very nice, this man has the power :o ;D
The commission has no power, the states do. What the Commission does is to administer the requests for adjudication from the riders, clubs or states and formulate them into something that the state LCB can say yes or no to.
Its not about being nice to me; but after 21 years in VMX and 10 as the commission chair person Im trying to open a dialogue for any questions on eligibility that might assist the riders with their preparation for the National Championships.
211
ok ok ,I'm sorry .....fire away VMX people with your questions.
Alison
-
I haven't read the GCRs on this question, but I thought the 75 TM125 was identical to the 74? The 75 RM125M is a different beast for sure, but the TM? Surely the 75 would be a follow on?
-
Graeme,
Lets look at the frame, the 75 TM250 is different at the top shock mount to the 74 and has a different swingarm. Total travel standard is 6.75 inches on the rear. Otherwise they are the same but its been determined that they are sufficently different from the 74 in this respect to exclude them from the pre 75 class.
Note; the build plate on the bike dosnt make it the model year, for example with the 75 model TM250 it was in production from September 1974 but was designated the 1975 model. The same arguement can be made for the MX250B, built late 74 but is the "designated" 1975 model and hence not pre75.
211
-
Good to see it out there in black & white thanks dave .
-
Gday Dave .What would be the the ruling on yz250-360b's ? ???
-
The CZ sproket issue is dead,
No 1975 TMs in pre 75 race them in the pre 78 class.
If its a 75/76 KX250/400 with a modified rear end - dont bring it unless your entered in pre 78 and you have moved the shocks to the original positions.
MX series Yamahas should have pre 75 engines in them, a 78 DT motor or otherwise dosnt count as pre 75.
Dave, not trying to be a smart-arse, but these points are really vague.
Only one of these affects me directly, but the others were just as confusing as helpful.
What's the story on CZ sprockets? Does the rivet vs bolt issue matter or not matter? Which era/model bikes does it apply to?
Are 75 TM125s OK as pre-75 bikes, or were you just talking about 75 TM250s?
Is a 76 KX250 with modified mounts and less than 9" of travel legal for pre-78 or not?
What about '75/76 DT250 engines fitted with a 74 head? Surely that's pre-75 legal? if not, why not?
And MX125Bs, DT175Bs, DT125Cs, etc - all should be follow-on bikes/engines?
-
KB171
These bikes long ago were considered pre 75 legal, the problem for these bikes is that the rear suspension needs limiting, pretty much at scrutineering I will be looking to see the spacer in the shock. Pretty much in about 1994 these bikes were accepted and have been there ever since.
Was really suprised at Tas last year just how many YZs there were there, the most I have ever seen, hope to see a few this year.
211
-
Nathan
was trying to give some examples of things I have seen, not everything to get the thread going.
To answer your question, all 1975 designated TM models have the same issues with the frame and the rule book doesnt consider them a follow-on therefore they are not OK for pre75.
The story with the CZ sproket is; some time ago it was considered that the wheel came with an integral sproket - pre70 CZ from memory, the decision was made to allow weld, rivet, bolt on etc to ensure that the sproket life of these machines didnt limit their life span and consign them to the back of the shed. There was a time when this wasnt the case and if the bike had anything other than an integral hub / sproket you could be knocked out.
-
Nathan
on the MX thing, you would be really suprised just how many radial heads I have seen getting pushed through. Its not a big issue but an example.
On the KX thing, last year there was a 76 KX250 with a modified rear end in pre 75, the 76 KX has different front wheels, forks, triples, frame geo, seat, - I could go on. All good for pre 78 not pre 75.
211
-
Good idea Dave - gets the arguing out before the day. I shall line up with my YZB again whilst you check her out ;D
cheers
Rossco
-
What about a 75 TM with the rear end modified to 74 or 75 TM cases in a 74 chassis?
What about MK 8 Pursangs with the rear modified to MK 7?
Is the 1K7 Yamaha front hub ok in pre 75?
Will MXB forks be ok in pre 75?
How to deal with a bike that may have later major components but no id numbers/marks?
What about a bike like that beaut CZ in the current VMX with a new built frame. Would the frame be assumed to be a faithfull repro and would it matter as long as the suspension criteria were met and it looked right?
If a component isn't performance enhancing as such, and looks kinda right but isn't, what happens?
Just a couple of examples. Must be lots more out there.
Good thread.
Cheers.
-
its very good to see that you will be enforcing the rules Dave T. I like to see that.
-
Best thread this year.
Thanks dave
-
Dave, I am curently building up a Ts/Tm, using a Ts frame and swing arm 1973 model and using all my 1975 running gear .......what are your thoughts
-
Is the 1K7 Yamaha front hub ok in pre 75?
Will MXB forks be ok in pre 75?
Ah... Excellent questions Kurt!
I had thought that MX-B forks are (visually) identical to YZ-B, and are therefore legal for pre-75?
And the hub thing:
The 322 hub was first fitted to the RT1MX, and was the 'standard fitment' on YZs and MXes right up to 77 models.
1K7 hub first appeared on the IT400C and was fitted to 'everything' for the next seven or so years.
These photos show the only difference between the two types (top photo is the earlier 322 one).
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f128/annaandnathan/Bikestuff/Dec11-08003.jpg
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f128/annaandnathan/Bikestuff/Dec11-08002.jpg
Does the 1K7 hub classify as a carry-over part? You could easily modify an earlier hub to look like the later one...
-
MX250B Forks are visualy the same as the YZ A units, from memory the tubes are a tad longer but the same, could be wrong on that one but I wouldnt have a problem with them pre 75.
On the 1k7 you are correct it started with the IT400 from 76 strictly speaking you shoud not be able to use this in pre 75. Im not 100% over every fine detail of every bike, there has to be some responsibility with the rider to make it correct for the period you going to ride it. My question you you is you say that you can easly modify and earlier hub to look like a later, can you do it the other way around?
I know when I restored S Gall's YZA that out of 7-8 hubs only 2 where acceptable, if there is an arguement that this hub is the same (minor difference) and would allow safer wheels then I suggest that it should be noted to the Commission so it can be considered.
On you other questions, no, you cant modify the frame of a TM,KX, Bully or anything to make a later bike legal pre 75.
Im not even going to go there on the CZ issue and Brads bike, looks great and whereas the USA has very similar rules to us, in fact we have taken many of their leads, its not for me to comment on that indervidual bike.
-
oldfart
correct me if Im wrong; the later TS stuff differs externaly, such as center port, fins, casting differences in on the clutch side? Doc, your the Guru, what are the differences?
Dave
-
MX250B Forks are visualy the same as the YZ A units, from memory the tubes are a tad longer but the same, could be wrong on that one ...
Yes - the lower legs are the same as YZ250/360A/B and the upper tubes are the same as/very similar to the YZ250/360B. The YZ-B tubes are slightly longer than the YZ-A tubes, although the travel is the same.
On the 1k7 you are correct it started with the IT400 from 76 strictly speaking you shoud not be able to use this in pre 75.
...
My question you you is you say that you can easly modify and earlier hub to look like a later, can you do it the other way around?
Did you click on my pictures?
The only difference is the 9 small webbs between the spoke holes on the non-brake side - obviously no difference in strength, and (IMHO) insignificant visual difference.
It would be dead-easy to remove them from an early hub, but unrealistically difficult to go the other way.
The value in the later hub is that they're a LOT easier to get, and they're probably marginally lighter.
I guess I was trying to point out that you could legally modify a pre-75-legal hub to be exactly like the later hub, so my reasoning says that the later hub should also be legal for pre-75.
-
Nathan
if you feel that way put some words to your LCB and state the case. I personaly wouldnt have an issue.
211
-
Hi Dave,
I have a Bultaco Mk 5 350 that I sometimes race in Dirt Track and MX. It has a later model frontera engine fitted, so has to go into the Pre 78 Open Class. It also has a Mikuni flat slide carby on it (as it was raced in different club classes on the NSW south coast).
Can I run the bike with this set up at the Nationals, or do I have to switch to a round slide Mikuni?
Cheers,
Mark
-
Mark,
GCRs 18.6.0.4 (b) suggest you take it off.
Looking at it though, this is one rule that has been perhaps left behind, the flat slide was available in 77 and therefore you could argue that as available it should be allowed; but the rules overall ban the use.
I will make this point at the commission meetings in 2 weeks time and ask the LCB 's to consider an amendment that allows flat slides post 75.
Remember; how the system works is the state body, your Historic Committee will be asked if they agree, the Commission has no power to change / alter the rules only on the agreement of your state bodies can this be done.
I guess this is one of the points of this thread. Do others agree that as flat slides (to the best of my knowledge) were available in 77 therefore they should be legal post 75 classes??
Regards
Dave
-
honest question here Dave - when I was a young fella we could always ride a class up albeit based on size ie 125 in 250s and 250s in 500s or Unlimited. Why can't I ride my pre 75 in pre 78 as well? ???
thanks
Rossco
PS I agree - probably best thread for a while.
-
So a 75 model can't be modified to be eligble in pre75, fair enough.
But can the 75 model have the shocks laid down further to be more competitive in pre 78, keeping within the 9" travel?
-
i cant see what the reasons are for not allowing someone to race a pre 75 bike in the pre 78 class if they want to as they would be at a disadvantage anyway so why not just allow that?
-
Do others agree that as flat slides (to the best of my knowledge) were available in 77 therefore they should be legal post 75 classes??
Hi Dave. I am Mark Boddy. We met at the 2008 Classic Dirt Track Nationals and I was one of the Scrutineers.
I was PCRA's eligibility guy for New Era from it's establishment through to the end of 2007.
I was coached by Marcus deCaux on eligibility issues and have been involved in some eligibility disputes at National open meetings.
I have successfully protested a bike on eligibility grounds.
Historic Road Racing rules consider the Carburetor to be a major componant and therefore it must be of the same Era of the bike.
Why should Classic MX and Dirt Track be any different?
The original intent of the flat slide rule can be determined from past versions of the MoMs. (In 1977 Pre-75 was the newest class).
For example,
16.11.4 b) Carburetors
i) Any round-slide carburetor can be used.
ii) Modern flat-slide carburetors are prohibited.
iii) Early flat-slide carburetors (Walbro, Lectron etc.) are allowed provided the owner can prove that they were available pre 1975.
What happened was that it was not possible to prove that the Lectron was available pre 1975 because it was not available until 1976.
So the rule was changed.
In 2000 Pre-75 was still the newest class and the rule was:
14.2.6.2 Carburettors
a) Any round slide carburettor of a type manufactured within the period specified for the class in which the machine competes. For Pre 1960, 1965 classes the Mk 1 Amal Concentric may be used.
b) Flat slide carburettors are prohibited.
c) No reed valves ... etc
d) From 01/01/2001 no reed valve ... etc
For 2002 Pre-78 was added to the MoMs. But only the most minimal changes were made to the Classic Motocross rules to incorporate it.
This is the root of the problem.
The carburettor rule was updated again:
14.2.6.2 Carburettors
a) Any round slide carburettor of a type available Pre 1975 may be used except the Pre 1960 class where a Mk 1 Amal Concentric or period carburettor may be used.
b) Flat slide carburettors are prohibited.
c) No reed valves ... etc
It seems to me that the change to the carburettor rule was made independently to the addition of Pre-78.
What other reason would there be to exclude round slide carbys from 1976 or 1977 from Pre-78 bikes?
The general precedent of rules in the MoMs is that Era parts are allowable in the Era. This oversight is inconsistent with this.
For the next year (2003) a serious attempt was made to add Pre-78 to the MoMs.
Pre-78 was given it's own eligibility section:
14.2.13 Pre 78 Classes and Eligibility
...
These detailed rules contradicted many rules that appeared before them in the MoMs. For example, 7" suspension travel limits, etc.
It is clear when reading the 2003 MoMs that these rules applied to Pre-75 and 14.2.13 applied to Pre-78.
This should probably have been explicity stated in the MoMs but was not.
Later Evo and Pre-85 were added each with their own Eligibility section.
If you do not believe that this is the intention of the rules then how do you explain the rationale for a pre-75 roundslide Mikuni to be fitted to a 1980 IT175G before it is allowed to race (it had a 32mm powerjet Mikuni) or to have to fit a Mikuni roundslide to a Pre-85 RM Suzuki to replace their Mikuni TM?
This is obviously nonsense.
So what carbies can be used?
This is a list of some common carbies and their availability date:
Lectron (non powerjet) 1976
Lectron powerjet 1979
Mikuni powerjet (roundslide) 1979
Mikuni TM 1982
Keihin PJ 1985
Mikuni TMX 1987
Keihin PWK 1988
Mikuni TMS 1992
Mikuni PM 1998
Keihin PWM 1999
Therefore as the flatslide Mikuni was not available in 1977 it cannot be used in Pre-78.
The MoMs should NOT be amended 'to allow flat slides for Pre-78 and later'.
Instead it should be amended to explicitly state that all eligibilty for Pre-78, Evo and Pre-85 classes is stated in the individual section for each of these classes.
Mark Boddy
-
i will jump in say 2 things, first you are right about flat slides for pre 78 Mark and on the question of riding up a class, which is why, when pre 75 has a majority of classes available to it and when you bring pre 85 into the ? where can they ride up to, also with an expected 300 competitors for this event, instead of pushing the rules and say why cant i, i think it comes down to the fact that all bikes race under there own class, isnt that what classic motocross is about, otherwise, we would have all in races with whatever bike you wanted to ride. And then there
would be the ? why cant i ride down? ;D
Cheers Trev
-
didnt the mikuni flatslide TM come out on some of the 82 model bikes? I think this discussion is good and it is what is needed and so many people have questions as to what is legal and what isnt, so the more questions asked here the better i say, and by the time the races come around everyone should be educated and up to speed on whats allowed and whats not.
-
Trev - the question was riding up A class or period? Don't colour the issue by asking about riding "back" a class? Somewhere over the last "few" years this has been disallowed - the question was why - thats all. Also for clarification - one period or class was what I was used to ie no 125s in 500s therefore pre 75 in pre 78 - no more no less. I also thought pre 78 was a bit of a forgotten class and maybe numbers might not be so forthcoming? Also it doen't matter how many classes before per 75 - I was refering to per 75 only.
regards
Rossco
-
didnt the mikuni flatslide TM come out on some of the 82 model bikes?
I believe that it was 1983 based on my research. But if you know of any 1982 models then I would be keen to know which ones.
-
1982 Suzuki RM 250 Z had a flat slide carby - couldn't say which one at the moment - not at home.
cheers
Rossco
-
1982 Suzuki RM 250 Z had a flat slide carby - couldn't say which one at the moment - not at home.
I just checked the online Suzuki parts catalog and you are correct. It is a Mikuni TM. I'll update my previous post. Thanks.
-
thought so. It would be the TM then. So does that mean you can buy a new aftermarket TM mikuni and fit it to another 82 suzuki that didnt have a TM flatlside but since they were on the 82 RM250 it makes it allowable?
-
So does that mean you can buy a new aftermarket TM mikuni and fit it to another 82 suzuki that didnt have a TM flatlside but since they were on the 82 RM250 it makes it allowable?
For Pre-85 you can.
Evo may be a different matter because of the undefined 'OEM' statement.
Anyone got a good definition for OEM to add to the Evo rules?
-
Riding "up" a class , either bigger capacity or later era can't be supported and i would say it wont. Its a national title , not a club day to start with. Also if you had 20 guys with one bike wanting more rides, that would be chaos for riders and officials. At the end of the day, its not in the spirit of the ERA. It is the one event where you have to dot your I's and cross your T's, by the book.
-
ok i understand that now. I was just wondering why and didnt know the reason.
-
Riding "up" a class , either bigger capacity or later era can't be supported and i would say it wont. Its a national title , not a club day to start with. Also if you had 20 guys with one bike wanting more rides, that would be chaos for riders and officials. At the end of the day, its not in the spirit of the ERA. It is the one event where you have to dot your I's and cross your T's, by the book.
YES 090 agree - I'm really feeling for the rider....
who has done X amount of rides
who is not reading this forum chat or a MOM's.
who has used X amount of these carby's,
too do X amount of km's to arrive at a nationals,
to only be told in X amount of terms.......NO GO ......
:'( :'(
Alison
-
Hi Dave
Piggy back shocks on 1977 AW400 Maico, yes or no as you rolled your eyes ::) at the DT nats, they were available in the era, and yeah i know the numbers have to be bigger and straight :D
Thanks Ross
(http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh160/rosco400_photos/Maico002.jpg)
-
i thought the rule was no piggybacks or remote reservoirs on pre 78 bikes except for those Thermal Flow shocks. or maybe im thinking of the pre 75 sidecar rules? hmm now that i think about it i have a sales brochure that says the Koni remote reservoir shocks were used in the 77 season by the top professional riders, so i wonder if they could or should be allowed? Also Fox had optional reservoir kits available before 78. But i guess if there is a rule that says NO to all reservoir shocks period or modern for pre 78 then thats the rule. Having just said that ive been told shocks are classed as consumables so anything goes? It gets so confusing!
-
I kind of get the feeling that "opening a can of worms" can be used to best describe this thread.....
-
i thought the rule was no piggybacks or remote reservoirs on pre 78 bikes except for those Thermal Flow shocks
MOMS doesnt say no ???
-
well there you go, it basically is open slather then :) i think there should be more restrictions and rules on things like rear shocks and less on things like if a front hub has some little bit of extra webbing or a cylinder has different finning for example. Is it fair or within the spirit of the era to have to have your bike fit the period/class but you then can still have the latest and greatest gas shocks with external adjustments?
-
I kind of get the feeling that "opening a can of worms" can be used to best describe this thread.....
Sure, but it may well save opening a much bigger can at the nats, and you can all get on with the racing if these queries are straightened out early. Hats off to Dave for being pro-active and opening the discussion. Good to get these rules clarified item by item...unfortunately you still can't legislate against stubbornness or stupidity.
And Mark, claiming you were coached in eligibility by Marc de Caux is no great rap, he has finagled his way into Post-Classic period 4 Junior class (1972 cutoff) with an RR350 Harley-Davidson roadracer and has been getting away with it for over 10 years.... :D
-
everyone who races at nats will know if there
bike is eligable for its class or not
scrutineering is mainly safety concerns
and the usual checks etc
so if you race the bike and someone protests and the bike is wrong
you have to wear it
because you would now you are wrong
if you are not sure about certain rules
regarding your bike find out research it
you have time before the meeting
i am not talking if you have 10mm more travel than you should
its the obvious like fitment of later parts
that are not from that era etc
massive obvious travel etc read the rule book if you are not sure
its not rocket science ;)
-
Nah, HSB its the subtle and/or grey areas that are the worry.
The Yamaha front hub thing is a great example - I've been fitting the later hubs on the figuring that it was a non-issue, but now I have the opportunity to have the rules changed before it turns into a poop-fight.
-
Rossco, shocks are fine, Piggy Back are OK even for pre 75 (Yamaha Thermos etc).
It was the numbers not the shocks!!! ;)
-
On the carby issue; this forum isnt about pre - clearence for your bike, the intent - in my view of 18.6.04 b) is pre 75. I think its been there since before pre 78 and EVO came to the GCRs. It is a subject that should be looked at and will. The Commission meets in a week or two, I will ensure its on the agenda.
Im sure there wont be problems with bikes that had them standard, Im sure that common sence will prevail.
-
i cant see what the reasons are for not allowing someone to race a pre 75 bike in the pre 78 class if they want to as they would be at a disadvantage anyway so why not just allow that?
When the Whitsunday Club put forward the suggestion for pre 78 the rationale came from the AHRMA and their rules for the class, it was the agreement of the State LCBs - well those who bothered to respond- that these rules represented a good guideline. One if these is the intent that it represent the first generation of LTR bikes hence its the only class that is only for that period and is limited in 18.7.6 as such.
211
-
Mark
HRR has its own set of rules, CMX and CDT have theirs for good or for bad, if you have a suggestion there is a State LCB that will take it on your behalf and the Commission will put it out there for discussion.
Im fortunate, I have never had the need to advise the Steward on a matter of eligibility in a protest. I want to keep it that way hence this forum allows the riders to ask some questions and to the best of my experience answer them.
The carby issue is a positive outcome, its a rule that is in need of the Commissions attention and I thank you for the information.
211
-
everyone who races at nats will know if there
bike is eligable for its class or not
scrutineering is mainly safety concerns
and the usual checks etc
so if you race the bike and someone protests and the bike is wrong
you have to wear it
because you would now you are wrong
if you are not sure about certain rules
regarding your bike find out research it
you have time before the meeting
i am not talking if you have 10mm more travel than you should
its the obvious like fitment of later parts
that are not from that era etc
massive obvious travel etc read the rule book if you are not sure
its not rocket science ;)
I'm with you Holey. I think the scrutineers should concentrate on safety issues and a 'silhouette' or 'passing glance' compliance to period. They maybe might make comment that a part might be liable to protest but I don't think they should stop a bike from starting because of some part/s non-conformance.
I don't think bikes with a suspension travel advantage should be allowed to race - clear cut, empirical, easy to check and gives too much advantage.
I would like to see any protest decided on the day. How? not certain, probably by a Chinese Parliament of the riders of the class - i.e. protested by a rider/s only and judged by peers.
In others words the bikes likely to win or place would be GCR compliant but Muggins making up the numbers at the back of the field (and having a good old time) might ride a non-complying bike that the punters hanging over the fence can't pick as been wrong.
-
I am another to agree that this thread is one of the best yet,
Thanks for your responses Dave.
-
Dave that you have instigated this topic and then taken the time to read and answer everyone's question/query is a mighty effort.
If I was you and Nathan was me me would'nt bother turning up at a meeting that I was scrutineering at.
-
If I was you and Nathan was me me would'nt bother turning up at a meeting that I was scrutineering at.
???
I have absolutely no idea what this is about.
-
Nathan (and anyone else of a like mind) I guess what I am trying to say is that in my time of racing Dirt Track I have been hosed off by plenty and on every occasion ABILITY not ELIGIBILITY has been the difference. Lets keep it that way for the sport and the Scrutineer's sake.
It's whatever the time is and I've consumed the obligatory two long necks and a couple of glasses of wine with dinner and await to be howl'ed by the masses. In the nicest possible VMX forum way.
-
I doubt that anyone will disagree with you, Col.
I certainly agree that its 95% rider and only 5% bike, particularly if we're talking about stuff that's not obviously, stupidly outside of the rules (like fronting up with a 2009 model bike...).
My interest in the topic is purely about making sure that I don't get any nasty surprises at the track (not that I'm sure that I'm going yet).
-
i dont think the issues are just about people out to modify their bike to make them better and out perform others and win at all costs and to and try and enter a class, but it is more about because of a lack or parts and wanting or needing to use something slightly later eg the Yamaha front hub. Im wondering if exceptions could be made for things like that as it might help fill the classes. Eg there could be 5 yamaha riders with 1k7 front hubs because they simply cant find 322 hubs but there is no performance gain from the 1K7 front hub. So should the rules not allow these 5 yamahas to enter pre 75 even if the rest of the bikes are 100% Ok? i know i would like to see a full grid of pre 75's race and everything should be done to encourage more entrys and knocking back 5 bikes because of a minor hub difference is maybe a little harsh? These people are trying their hardest to support pre 75 but there can be times when you just cant get the right parts and may have to use something very close thats slightly later. Will the rules ever become more forgiving to allow somethings, but still kept tight enough to not allow modifications or parts that are a definite advantage or look not within the period?
-
Not at Nationals. The point I made about older class bikes riding up would be a better option than allowing "non era parts" after all where do you stop when the next guy wants just this little bit more etc...... I also admit I may have to wait a while but I have not NOT been able to find a part yet (not saying it doesn't happen though). And lets also remember I may not be at the pointy end and actually battling it out somewhere lots further back but I would like to know the guy I am tussling with is riding with the correct bits and pieces as well because my race for 21st and 22nd is just as important and should be just as fair as 1st and 2nd. Sorry don't think there can be gray in that area.
Rossco
-
I don't disagree with any of that Ross, but to provide a counter-point (I'm going to labour on the Yamaha hub thing, but I'm sure there similar issues that relate to everyone's bike/s - so don't go thinking that I'm obsessing over this particular issue - its just a convenient example):
1. Lots of stuff is legally non-era. Personally, I find a 1K7 front hub to be a lot less visually offensive than a set of modern 'fat bars' - and conventional 7/8" bars are a lot easier to find (and fit) than a 322 hub. Unlike the bars, a 1K7 hub offers no tangible performance gains.
2. Lots of stuff has been accepted for a long time (rightly or wrongly). To suddenly crack down on hubs that are missing nine small, ineffective webs, is to risk upsetting a bunch of riders who have bikes that have been considered legal for many years, including previous VMX Nats.
3. As a rider, I don't give a rat's arse if I'm beaten by someone with the wrong front hub, or a pipe that runs the wrong way, or whatever. Given the infrequency of protests over these issues (and the fact that the protester is generally viewed as a twit when they have protested), I figure that my view is shared by the majority of VMXers.
Maybe I'd have a different view if I was beaten to the silverware by someone who has an illegal set of forks or barrel or too much suspension travel (ie: Something that clearly makes a difference) but until then...
4. Several of my pre-77 bikes have 1K7 hubs. Given how difficult/relatively expensive finding and fitting 322 hubs is, at least a couple of those bikes wouldn't have even been built if the 1K7s weren't acceptable.
Those couple of bikes weren't built to be Nationals bikes (ie: They're low cost shitters), and they're only designed to have some fun at club events - so you could argue that it makes no difference - but are we encoruaging participation in the sport, particularly when the bikes are arguably within the 'spirit of the era'.
Or are we discouraging participation? If so, why is that a good thing?
Even if I look at my more serious (ha!) race bikes, knowing that I'm going to have to chase hubs, respoke wheels, etc, greatly dampens my enthusiasm for the event - making me less likely to turn up...
Good for the sport?
5. Sometimes, riding up an era isn't really an option - if I make it to this year's nats, I'll take a pre-75 125 and a pre-78 one - so bumping the pre-75 bike into pre-78 will mean that I go lose a ride.
Australian car rallying is being killing by its administrators at the moment, through a peculiar mix of utter neglect and pedantic meddling. All of the troops are up in arms over this, and a lot has been said about it, and its invariably been ignored...
The one simple message that seems to have a hope of getting through, is asking them to finish every statement with "....and I'm doing this for the good of the sport".
Now, I'm not claiming that VMX is suffering from the same afflication - this thread shows that our commissioners are actively trying to do the right thing, and I reckon that's great.
But the simple principle of stating "This is good for the sport" is an excellent way of keeping the focus on the outcomes rather than the process.
-
What if someone turned up with a '77 Montesa VB Cappra , to ride in the pre '78 class ? The rulebook doesn't list them as a eligible bike , even though they are a designated '77 model ???.
-
What if someone turned up with a '77 Montesa VB Cappra , to ride in the pre '78 class ? The rulebook doesn't list them as a eligible bike , even though they are a designated '77 model ???.
;D that's me ;D
But I'll resto first then think about giving the hotshots a run for their money ;D
-
Dave and All...the one other thing that really amazes me at a Nationals is the amount of bikes that attempt to go thru machine examining with no countershaft sprocket covers..don't even bother with the .."well my bike didn't have one when it was new...so why do I have to now"...The rule has been around since the 70's and hasn't changed so ...please make your own morning easier and cover em up...
The pre 78 thing is all about showcasing a different area of bikes ..the early LTR bikes need to be in their own category...not have pre 75 bikes mixed in with them... :)
-
I agree that they should not be mixed as we have to avoid running over those slow old pre-75 riders at all cost.
They are dissappearing at a rapid rate with out running the remaining ones over, soon they may be extinct , maybe we can get a govenment grant to preserve the old dinosours or maybe a capture and breading program or something along that line.
I have it on good advise that the biggest colony of these beasts is in the far western provinces of Australia. They are reputed to be very fast and have all the manoeuvres . You should only approach them with caution ,as if you startle them they will protest loudly. You dont see them often, but i also have it on good advise , if you leave beer out they become docile very quickly and become very easy to catch.
:o :o :o :o :o
-
Husky - when did you last see us ride - bugger - caught out! ;D and slow old pre 75's - must be me in particular.
Graeme - I have no problem going with the consensus regards riding up a class and was really just after a why it isn't done now a days compared to previously so I can shut my gob over that no hassles. My only concern with what may occur with allowing "non legal" or some other term parts is where does it stop? My personal feelings are you are correct about the hub - no arguement there but will it stop there? I also don't care who beats me (as there are many of those) but I ride pre 75 so should be beaten by a pre 75 not a pre 75 and a bit - and I still think the Nats should be as "pure" as possible.
catch ya.
Rossco
-
That would have been in Tassie Rossco.
-
I agree that they should not be mixed as we have to avoid running over those slow old pre-75 riders at all cost.
They are dissappearing at a rapid rate with out running the remaining ones over, soon they may be extinct , maybe we can get a govenment grant to preserve the old dinosours or maybe a capture and breading program or something along that line.
I have it on good advise that the biggest colony of these beasts is in the far western provinces of Australia. They are reputed to be very fast and have all the manoeuvres . You should only approach them with caution ,as if you startle them they will protest loudly. You dont see them often, but i also have it on good advise , if you leave beer out they become docile very quickly and become very easy to catch.
:o :o :o :o :o
Don't let the first impression be the lasting impressions ;) :-*
Preservation society well under way. ;D 8)
Cheers Alison
-
Yammiefan,
I thought countershaft sprockets only required covers if more than 30mm from outside edge of swingarm ???
-
Don't recall seeing a pre 75 bike that would meet those MOMS requirements ...probably not many pre 78 either... :)
-
The yamaha front hub(1k7) is most definitely a performance enhancing part, after all it still takes the same brake shoes as the (322) ;) ;D , when at the same time the bike that is racing next to you in Pre75 can run the latest and greatest internals' in the shocks, but that isnt deemed performance enhancing ::)
I'm all for period parts and keeping everything as "pure" as possible, but at what expense?
I understand the concept of consumables and being able to replace them with newer parts, but what happens if you went to your Yamaha shop(or any bike shop) and the 322 hub is supersedeed to the 1k7 hub? Are hub brake linnings not consumables? Yet most shocks can be rebuilt or parts remade to look and respond as "pure" but it seems to be easier to buy new ones that are gold anodised/highly polished alloy with modern up to date technology and materials. Yes I can see the "purity" in that, definitely not performance enhancing??
* "pure".... Rossvickicambell, this is not a go at you, not at all, its just that you used the word "pure" and I like what it means so I have "borrowed" the word from you. This is purely an observation/oppinion of mine, and after all we accept big wide footpegs that were never thought of but a blind eye seems to be cast over them, non performance or performance enhancing?? or is it a safety issue.
I am fully aware of how hard it is to keep these bikes going and I would have thought a non performance part from a newer model from the same manufacturer would be more in keeping with "purist" than aftermarket modern technology/materials be they consumables or not.
Anyway, sorry guys, a little of track, better get back to the scrutineering Q's and A's.... Top thread Dave
-
I agree with what you said DJRacing. good points said there. Modern high tech shocks (any brands) seem to get overlooked, but it would be hard to police unless a list was made outlining what sort/brands/features are acceptable for what periods. If was anyone going to the Nationals i would just fit a sprocket cover just to be on the safe side. You dont want to go all that way and be told you need to have one.
-
Don't recall seeing a pre 75 bike that would meet those MOMS requirements ...probably not many pre 78 either... :)
Maybe not, but the nationals cater for bikes up to pre '85
-
Or are we discouraging participation? If so, why is that a good thing?
Even if I look at my more serious (ha!) race bikes, knowing that I'm going to have to chase hubs, respoke wheels, etc, greatly dampens my enthusiasm for the event - making me less likely to turn up...
Good for the sport?
Aren't we talking about one event , not the vintage movement? Also the pinnacle event when there has to be guidelines that have to be followed . Otherwise, an Australian title would be a fast.
1. Lots of stuff is legally non-era. Personally, I find a 1K7 front hub to be a lot less visually offensive than a set of modern 'fat bars' - and conventional 7/8" bars are a lot easier to find (and fit) than a 322 hub. Unlike the bars, a 1K7 hub offers no tangible performance gains.
I dont know how a set of handle bars can be a performance gain.
Not trying to pick on you mate, but i think you are a bit off the mark.
-
well said Brad,
we all have to remmeber this is the National titles and will be treated as such, if you knowingly travel to this event with a machine not fitting the gcr's for the class you wish to race, just dose'nt make sense, it is not a casual club event where nobody cares, we will have MA representitives overseaing the event as it is a National Title and there will be no exceptions to classifaction of bikes or class.
sounds tough but they are the National Titles.
Cheers Trev
-
DJ - good point and as LWC said shocks can be overlooked and yes I did - can't argue with that point.
cheers
Rossco
:P
-
Or are we discouraging participation? If so, why is that a good thing?
Even if I look at my more serious (ha!) race bikes, knowing that I'm going to have to chase hubs, respoke wheels, etc, greatly dampens my enthusiasm for the event - making me less likely to turn up...
Good for the sport?
Aren't we talking about one event , not the vintage movement? Also the pinnacle event when there has to be guidelines that have to be followed . Otherwise, an Australian title would be a fast.
1. Lots of stuff is legally non-era. Personally, I find a 1K7 front hub to be a lot less visually offensive than a set of modern 'fat bars' - and conventional 7/8" bars are a lot easier to find (and fit) than a 322 hub. Unlike the bars, a 1K7 hub offers no tangible performance gains.
I dont know how a set of handle bars can be a performance gain.
Not trying to pick on you mate, but i think you are a bit off the mark.
I was specifically talking about this one event (ie: The Nationals), but how is it good for the sport if people stay home rather than turning up and being a part of it. Particularly as its an eligibility issue that nobody seems to support (except for "Its in the rules, so it should be enforced", which I do largely agree with).
Have you ridden an old bike with Fat Bars, Brad? I thought they were a wank too, but the give in them is worth probably another 2" worth of travel on the big hits...
They'd help me get around an MX track faster, far more than a hub without 9 webs will.
-
At the end of the day the Rules are the Rules and once you sign the bottom line you are agreeing with them whether you like them or not, they are written in black and white, end of story.
Personal, for one off national titles, I think the more orginal the bikes should be, as the manufacture made them in the day, barring tyres, cables, levers, handlebars and grips as these are true consumables, but only comparible to the orginals' should be allowed. The other components can all be remade/built to the same standard as orginal. True Vintage racing.
The scrutineers I assume have a hard enough job without people turning up with something that can be protested. If you keep your bike as close to orginal as possible and race in the Nationals then good luck, you'll be the better for it and if you podium I bet the wine will taste even sweeter.
-
I much prefer to have a bike with trick aftermarket period items such as shocks, pipe, radial head, fork kit etc. All parts that were available for the period. Half the fun for me with a vintage bike is tricking it up and trying to get the most out of it. Basically personalizing it so it's not the same as everyones.
-
i have no problem with that JonnyO, its the modern trick type parts that dont look the right period to me.
-
I was specifically talking about this one event (ie: The Nationals), but how is it good for the sport if people stay home rather than turning up and being a part of it. Particularly as its an eligibility issue that nobody seems to support (except for "Its in the rules, so it should be enforced", which I do largely agree with).
I feel that if someone stays home because they feel its too hard to comply, then they are either half hearted about going, or they have too many parts that wont comply that they have been getting away with at club level. For me personally, how could i miss this one. Especially when its in my back yard.Typically, the majority will be more 'locals' that participate.
I also feel that the example you put forward regarding a hub that is incorrect, i would think that not being a glaring difference it would slip through anyway. More so than incorrect shocks and the like which would be a true advantage.
Have you ridden an old bike with Fat Bars, Brad? I thought they were a wank too, but the give in them is worth probably another 2" worth of travel on the big hits...
They'd help me get around an MX track faster, far more than a hub without 9 webs will.
I have a set on my 74 CZ . I took off the originals to save them(welded on lever type) and i had a set of fat bars in the shed. Other than a better riding position, the front still felt the same to me. But then again, if i rode with sticks instead of forks, i probably wouldnt know the difference as i am hopeless with suspension ::)
-
Quote from Lozza "Onus of proof of eligabilty lies with the entrant" in other words if you have proof(pictures or magazine articles) that the part was used in the period then that overrides everything.NO protest will ever stand with kind of proof"
Just about says it all
-
thats not always the case though as you can rock up with your Shinobi water cooled head on your 78 RM 125 and your proof in hand but you still cant ride Evo with it fitted. And yes i know Evo is a technology class, but it think if things were to be made fair then the period watercooled kits such as the shinobi as well as other outlawed period parts, could be made legal for Evo, if not then perhapse a new class could be made where we can get to see these bikes that are built with correct vintage period aftermarket parts fitted. I remember someone who had a water cooled mugen kitted 78-80 Honda which really should be in the Evo class but because of the watercooling its not allowed in Evo. Its no big deal to me but its a shame thats the way the rules are. But modern shocks are still alowed ::)
-
Yes, but there's a specific rule that says "No water cooling" in both pre-78 and Evo (and Evo is a technology class rather than any specific age, blah, blah, its been done to death).
So having a 1978 water cooled head would be Evo legal if you could somehow prove that it wasn't water-cooled.... (?!)
-
Hi 211kawasaki,
Can you please explain 12.8.8 Drive Chain Protection
12.8.8.5
A counter shaft sprocket which is more than 30mm from the outside of the swing arm pivot must be covered.
I have drawn up option A and B and would like to know what is the interpretation of this rule. Every body seems to say just install a guard but I only want to do what is required. Is a guard required if the sprocket is located like in option A?
Ji
-
Or is the rule applied to sprockets that stick out like option B.
Ji
-
Ji,
it's not in the "plan" view but a "side" view. ;)
-
Okay
Side view
Where is the 30mm taken from?
Centre of pivot to centre of counter shaft? or
Centre of pivot to closest point of sprocket?
Ji
-
Ji, a dramatisation obviously..but have never seen a chain run down the outside of the swingarm pivot... the original rule was all about NOT getting your delicate little fingers caught in the drive assembly...from a safety persepective..I would just cover it up anyway... :)
-
Hi yammiefan,
The finger protection was for the primary drive chain.
I drew those two options so we can explore what is what, after all I don't know everything about every bike. I certainly did not know that CZ rear sprockets were riveted on.
Is it actually required by applying the rule correctly. I would like to see what the man that will be making such a decision has to say (211kawasaki).
Ji
-
With respect Ji...your own club event scruit people should have already advised you on a requirement...everyone has the same MOM's to go by... ;)
-
Guys
For me this has been a really positive thread, It will become the basis of some discussions and I only suggest that you all persue your state body for the outcomes that you the riders want. Around the end of May there will be recomendations with the states.
Im really happy to take any PMs in indervidual issues that may be of concern but can I suggest that you let the guys who may not be connected to this forum that there will be an insistance and adhearance to the letter of the GCR's.
I want to keep the slate clean and not have to dissapoint anyone on the day so build your bike to the GCRs dont try to make your bike fit the GCRs after its built.
If you would like me to start another thread on say how pre 78 got to the rule book or why something else happened I would be really happy to do that. I think if more out there knew how the system worked we would be able to work more closely as a group; better for everyone.
Dave T
-
Nathan
just wanted to add that your absolutly correct and every time that the commission looks at a rule alteration request, bike elegibility issue, whatever, the underlining consideration is the belief that that decision must be in the best interest of the sport. Sometimes however when you do this that consideration takes out of the play someone on the fringe of the issue and thats never good either, sometimes its just unavoidable.
DT
-
I HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS FOR YEARS, ITS ALL IN THE RULE BOOK, READ IT, IF THE MACHINE OR PARTS ARE NOT PRE 65, PRE70, PRE 75 OR PRE 78 YOU CAN`T NOT USE IT, BUT IF IT IS A FLOW ON MODEL AND PAINT HAS ONLY BEEN THE CHANGE THAT WILL BE OK. WE KNOW SOMETIME IS CRUEL BUT ( ITS BLACK AND WHITE ).
Note If your bike was a pre 75 and you had lay down rear units, you can change it back to original or leave it the way it is and if you do, the bike must only be raced in pre78 classes only that is the rule. simple
Note. Bultaco MK8, HOW ANY ARE THERE ON THE TRACK RACING AS MK 7. Techincally MK8 ARE PRE 78 CLASS BIKES,
-
Listen why dont all you just put/make a cover over the forken front sprocket ,stop being proper pains in the arse and well enough said. Hope all the dills that want to stuff around with this or that stupid part at the titles all get tossed out by the officials. Use your COMMON SENSE for shits sake! If YOU have second thoughts about a part of YOUR machine change it. >:(
Wish I could be able to come and help you up there 211 . Because Tim754 (and others I too have since been emailed) are getting very sick of hearing whineing about problems that can easily be made kosher.
-
excuse me Mr TIM754 - common sense is actually not that common eh!
:D
Rossco
-
albrid
if in 1975 your 1974 bike was modified to lay forward the suspension it will have to be put back to where it was as standard to race in pre 75. The pre78 rules are quite clear that the class is for 75,76 and 77 model years so a modified 74 is still a modified 74 model. Its the model year thats the point here.
211
-
David 211, That is right, early days, if a person was racing a pre75 for example, Montesa VR, AND THE UNITS WHERE LAY DOWN THEY WENT INTO A MODIFIED CLASS WHICH BECAME THE PRE 80 CLASS.
Rules are straight forward and clear, for the new comer the rules are his guide.
Their is only one rule l would like to see included and that is period clothing.
-
Can't agree more with Tim 754's last post. I have never turned a page of the GCR's in 39yrs of on and off again racing in two or three disciples and have never had a problem at scrutineering anywhere at anytime. That's not to say that I wont have a problem at some time, but the last time and place I want or cause any aggrevation is with a scrutineer at 7.30am on a Sunday morning in some far away place or land. So I go out of my way to keep it simple for him/her/me. Trust me you'll sleep much better.
-
Hi dave,
I have a early 70's SL125 with a few modifcations eg; slightly extended swing arm, longer fork tubes but standard lower forks so still original travel, and custom straight out exhaust. All of these mods where common back then, I have amagazine article from early 70's showing a SL125with these mods, so am I elegible for pre 75 as I race at my club all the time with no problem.
thanks Greg
-
Intersting all the items here but I think a few have to take a step back and realise what some have been through in the past.Rules say you need folding footpegs.Interesting if you own an original 1963 Metisse. They used steel straps off the engine plates top and bottom and bolted together to form the footpeg on the outside of the cases, pure steel no folding action there, but that is what was ridden in 63. Taking the nickel off a 40 year old frame to weld in the available peg kit from new kits, re heat strengthen the frame in a baking oven at an airbase for hours and then renickeling and polishing to ride at the Nationals. Rules are rules so young fellas, forgive me if I dont have a lot of sympathy, suck it up and get on with it.
Nth Qld Rosco.
-
Just had a look at the supp regs for the Nats, and it clarified for me a point from earlier in this thread - 18.4 - back numbers must be worn.
Where's the needle & thread, now.
-
I loved the reply from the guy who entered the 125 class at the Aussie Nationals , at Barrabul, on a XL185/XR200 engined Special ,blew off CR125's , I think he came 3rd in the end , when found out "I didn't know it was a Hottie, my mate built it ?" What a A grade Tool. or really, just a cheating pr k,!!!!!!!
-
Scrutineers, if they are not paid then maybe they should be.
-
G'day
If my extended swing arm on my pre 75 bike slightly increases my rear travel, could I put spacers around the shaft of the shocks to bring it back to 4' travel, would that be elegible?
-
Is my 83 Husky a Evo or pre 85 bike can I use it in both class at the nationals, is it eligibil for both
-
Bigtoe refitting a standard length swingarm would remove all worries. You may be interested to know I run leading axle front forks on my SL125's ,all very legal as they are 73/74 model CR125 units that bolt straight in. Still finding said forks these days may be, ummm a bit harder than 15+ years ago when I collected at least eight sets for about $150 the lot..... Ps use very early CT agi bike top caps on them as they are so much easier to remove for servicing than the mongrel sunk in CR caps.
-
Hi Dave its Donny here and I have a couple of questions for you.I was born in 1953 so I presume I will be riding in 50-60 age bracket. I will be riding my 125 SICKMAN in the Pre 75 class and my 125 RMS in the Pre 78 class.A few years ago I had some new dentures fitted and as these are performance enhancing should I actually now be riding in EVO class or should I just keep my mouth shut??????
-
Is my Triumph 650 unit engined (engine numbers designate it as having 1967 cases!) Metisse running a mikuni VM round slide carbie eligable to run in the pre 65 class?
-
Hi Dirtrumpy
i dont think the vm mikuni slides where made till 69, so you would have to run a period carbie to race pre 65,
666 a 83 huskie is evo if it has twin shocks, if not its pre 85 and you can only ride one class not both.
Cheers Trev
-
looks like your up for a Amal concentric. These are still available new.
-
I much prefer to have a bike with trick aftermarket period items such as shocks, pipe, radial head, fork kit etc. All parts that were available for the period. Half the fun for me with a vintage bike is tricking it up and trying to get the most out of it. Basically personalizing it so it's not the same as everyones.
I agree its all about building a better mousetrap and as long as the hot parts were available in that period then no problem.
For club days then getting a few more people out there means looking the other way but for the nats where titles and major cash prizes are at stake then it should be to the GCR. Cheating the GCRs is just not cricket.
-
albrid
The pre78 rules are quite clear that the class is for 75,76 and 77 model years so a modified 74 is still a modified 74 model. Its the model year thats the point here.
211
Are you saying if someone puts a bike together that has a combination of pre 75 and pre 78 parts you cannot enter in the pre 78 class???
-
major cash prizes are at stake
In VMX ? Ha , you crack me up :D
-
I agree its all about building a better mousetrap and as long as the hot parts were available in that period then no problem.
well, except for some things like aftermarket watercooled heads/barrels in EVO or earlier ;)
-
well, except for some things like aftermarket water cooled heads/barrels in EVO or earlier ;)
I think if someone has one of the pretty bloody rare water cooled head set ups from pre 78 they should be able to run it. Point is that it was available in that period.
-
Yes i agree but rules are rules. ive seen several on ebay and other vintage sites. i have mainly seen them for EVO period bikes.
-
hi Dirtrumph
Mikuni carbs
MOMS page 153 , 18.6.0.4. ;
"any round slide carb of a type available pre 75 may be used ,except the pre 60 class".
after all we do want to be able to start the bloody things ,
be careful of relying on anwers to queries that start with the words :" I THINK" , "I BELIEVE," &" IN MY OPINION,"
-
well, except for some things like aftermarket water cooled heads/barrels in EVO or earlier ;)
I think if someone has one of the pretty bloody rare water cooled head set ups from pre 78 they should be able to run it. Point is that it was available in that period.
I tend to agree, but were these watercooled kits around in 77?
As for Evo, well its a class for air cooled bikes so I don't see how anyone can think a watercooled bike can be eligible in a air cooled class.
These debates would be better in their own thread as well.
I think Dave intended this thread to be about what the rules are at present,
not what rules anyone thinks need changing.
-
Dave just a clarification,
Below is extract from MOMS
18.7.6 Pre-78 Classes: Eligibility
The Pre-1978 classes are intended to represent
the “first generation” of long-travel bikes that were
commercially available in the 1975-77 periods. The
time frame is provided only as a guideline, as some
1977 models are of the second generation long-travel
bikes that would clearly outclass the earlier models
if allowed to run together. For this reason, we do not
classify motorcycles strictly by the year they were
produced, but by some similar characteristics that were
possessed by the majority of these first-generation
long-travel motorcycles, such as suspension travel.
You have been saying Pre 78 is only for bikes built between Jan 75 and Dec 77
Are you saying that a up graded pre 75 bike {that no longer fits into Pre 75 }
would then have to run in evo class?
Not trying to be smart just checking on interpretation
Cheers
Noel
-
i thought the classes are by model year and not mfg date, so a december 78 made bike would be a 79 model and cant be in pre 78. the way i see it pre 78 is only for bikes bikes that are 75,76 and 77 models. mfg date has nothing to do with it, it goes by model year.
-
sorry typo ment{ Dec77}
have edited
thats the question I was trying to ask,
you say manufacture date has nothing to do with it ??
Cheers
Noel
-
yes thats based on what others have said earlier on in this topic.
-
Ok,
So I guess my Question is
Does an up graded pre 75 bike have to run EVO , even if it is up grade with Pre 78 parts?
Cheers
Noel
-
very good question! i was thinking that too. if they dont want you in pre 78 then you might have to go in EVO ??? based on other coments i would think yes because if its a pre 75 bike but is modifed and doesnt meet pre 75 requirement, then you upgrade to pre 78, BUT they dont want pre 75 bikes upgrading and entering in pre 78 and they cant push you back to pre 75 because you dont fit there either so the next logical step is EVO class i guess which is more open slather.
-
You'd be in pre-78, most of the time (it would be possible to modify a 74 model bike so it didn't meet both the pre-75 and pre-78 rules).
I read the comment about not wanting pre-75 bikes to run in pre-78, and thought that it refered to bikes that were clearly pre-75 legal (or would need minimal, small mods to make them pre-75 legal).
If nothing else, the class is "pre-78", not "75~77". Fair enough that at the Nationals you're limited to only the one age class per bike, but there's nothing in the rules to stop you riding a pre-65 bike as an Evo, if it was the only class you rode that bike in.
I've heard of the road-race guys having two different fairings for one bike, which makes the bike legal in two different eras - the historic road race rules specifically say that a bike will be defined by its newest major component. So changing to a later major component between races, instantly makes the one bike legal for both classes.
Not sure if I agree with the intent in that case, but I can't argue with the execution.
Conceivably, you could swap front wheels (with different hubs :D) or rear shocks (with more travel) between races to change your pre-75 bike into a pre-78 one.
And a third wheel fitted with a YZ-J hub, would get three classes from the one bike.... (although a pre-75 bike is gonna get snotted in a field of pre-85 bikes).
-
G'day
Our club has a junior class, 13-16 year olds, will there be a junior class at the nationals
-
G'day
Our club has a junior class, 13-16 year olds, will there be a junior class at the nationals
You have opened a Pandora's box , asking that around here.....quick run... :o
They is big debate on it somewhere in here. :-X
Actually some of the new members on here nowdays might agree with the concept.
ps OverSeas they start VMX at 40. ;D
good name bigtoe ;) ;D
-
Problem with juniors is the number of classes you need to run for different ages.... you would only get 1 round of racing in during the day.
-
Guys
the Commission meetings are this weekend, I sort of didn't expect the response to the thread; I guess It was pre warning that ther rules will be enforced at the Nationals and the previous experience of a polite warning about the issues with a bike are now a thing of the past.
This forum is a great place for this type of conversation, after the meeting I will post a formal reply to the questions that remain unanswered but suggest strongly that you keep an eye out for the responses from your state committee and put your 2c worth in. These guys are your representitives and without them responding to the suggestions from the commission you have no voice.
The most important thing (and please tell your friends) is that you build your bike to the rule book and dont try to make the rule book fit your bike.
Dave T
-
G'day Dave
I've been reading the rule book and it dose'nt mention anything about swingarms, it just says that if your rear suspension is more than 4' inches then you need to insert spacers in the shocks to bring it back to 4 inches' my swingarm is slightly extended so if I insert the correct amount of spacers will that make my SL125 legal ? I don't think anyone raced an SL back in the day that was'nt modified
-
hay, 666 that was my maico /honda at barrabool, came 3th in the over 40 125 class on that little beauty, that engine was built by the famous Hallam brothers here in victoria, that bike was very quick.
still have a photo of her, where were you at that time.
cheers
david
-
That honda sure was fast, was it poweroll kit or 185cc internals?
-
I'm surprised you're bragging Allbrid. That was a pretty shameful bit of out and out cheating and it deprived one of the sports true good blokes Mick Cram of his moment of glory picking up the only trophy he'd ever won at the Nats. I don't know how the bike got through scrutineering. The XR200 engine was spotted by a half pissed Kiwi competitor in the dark after the racing was over from halfway accross the pits!
-
One of the problems the scrutineers have to deal with is not only the safety aspect of scrutineering , ie; safe bikes , but also the eligibilty of each bike , even though the scrutineers at this level are very experienced in VMXing it is unrealistic to expect that they know all the brands presented to them at scutineering( also there is a long line in front of them waiting for approval) , maybe we as riders should start to take a positive step to ease the burden faced by all scrutineers, M.A issued log books, that have bikes confirmed as eligible well before race day, by an eligibilty comittee who are known Builders or recognised experts in that particular brand , model , no one person can have all that combined knowledge,( although quite a few claim too,)
Historic racing have log books , speedway does , it would remove the problem of eligibilty on race day and the dissapointment of the riders who build their bikes within the Rules ,but are disadvantaged by those who don't ) no log book, no racing .
-
Hey albrid-3 can you set the record straight on this and put us all out of our misery. I was'nt there on the day and dont know anyone whom was, in fact all I do know about this is your last post and Old Phil's last post.
-
Tell you what, Jikov, the last thing you need or want in VMX is logbooks. They have been in historic roadracing for years and it's an absolute waste of time. Without going into it at great length, some have finagled dodgy bikes through, and others have had seemingly eligible bikes knocked back. Then, when you do finally present your logbook at scrutineering, it is invariably inspected by some Neville whose closest observation after looking at the enclosed photos, is either "You've painted your tank", or "You've changed yer number !"... usually the person inspecting the log book wouldn't have a clue, and is often the same person who checks your riding gear....not their fault, but not ideal.
The scrutineers have enough on their plate checking bikes and riding gear for safety, and inventing new and diplomatic responses to the tired old "but it was ok last time I rode...", without having to deal with the myriad of intricacies and pitfalls that eligibility contains. Nope, it's up to you, the rider, to read and understand the rule book, and to present a legal machine at the nationals. If you can get away with it at club level, fair enough: but at this level, bike legality should be governed by your peers riding in the same class.
Eligibility only comes into play once the protests start, and it's got bugger-all to do with the scrutineers. Why is it so hard for people to understand ? Get your bike sorted early, avoid the grief, and get on with the racing ! ;D
-
Forget I spoke.
-
At the time when l rode that bike, seriously l did not know if that bike was a 125 or bigger, it wasn`t protested at the time, about 2 weeks later after the meeting ended l asked the fellow who l bought the engine off, what size it was and he didn`t know so he rang hallam bros and asked them , they said at the time it was 155cc with a special cam that they purchased from the states , so me being fare l handed back my over 40`s Australian title trophy at the AGM Meeting. Well Mick Cams suzuki tm 125 sunrise model shouldn`t have in that race either so l was told. A third of the field would be illegal, sl 250 how many are over size, bultaco mk 7, how many are mk 8. so stop throwing stones at me.
-
That's very noble of you to had the trophy back albrid-3. 8) (if done under your own steam)
Now lets move on and pray to the Gods that those that have entered/entering this years Nationals have done there best not to rout the system, only to be fair and honest to themselves and all other entrance in the VMX Australia title.
cheers Alison
-
Thanks Alison, THE BIKE MAY BE A QUICK LITTLE JIGGER, BUT SO WAS THE RIDER.
-
A couple of questions Albrid, about your comments.
1. Did you surrender the trophy before or after being ENCOURAGED TO??
2. Why was Mick Crams TM125 illegal??
3. Who got the trophy in the end??
-
Has anyone riden a xl125 that goes as fast as a cr250 and not been suspicious?
-
I was told that Mick s suzuki was a 75 model not 74 , and yes l did surrender and handed back the trophy, it was at the AGM Meeting.
-
Its not even august yet and eligibilty is already rearing its ugly head :o I have sold my bike for a good price and will think twice now before getting another one ;)
-
What ? What's buying a new bike (or not) got to do with eligibility ? If you ensure your bike's legal, there's no issue. The thread was opened to clear up any grey areas, and to try and avoid any problems at the nats. If you wish to turn it into another snappy, stamping departure (your second !), go right ahead.... ::)
-
Why Hornet? Were you planning on running an illegal bike? If not there's nothing to think twice about.
-
Me running an illegal bike ? I can not even master the stock peak power it hade . I just run for fun and atmosphere, but the atmoshere has to be good , thats all . I just can not understand the seriosness of some people argumenting about about the size of a hub or if the sprocket is welded , riveted or boltet to the hub . Any bike in the spirit of the era should be welcome and not torn to pieces. Thats all I wanted to say . Sorry for dropping in :D
-
I agree with you there about all the bullshit about eligilibity. Thats why i moved to evo class years ago.. less crap and less whining!
-
I`II BACK YOU UP CD66, they sound like a screeming cat being swung by its tail.
-
David,
Your remark about the Bultaco Mk7 & Mk8 250 as far as eligibility goes, they are the same bike. As long as the swingarm from a Mk 7 (4'' travel) and spacers are put in the forks (to make 7'' travel) The engine internals and barrel are the same.I raced mine at the 07 nats and had no problems and I am sure that there will be some at the 09 nats. Its the 360 Mk8 that is ineligible because the engine had a major power increase over the Mk7.
Comments Please.
-
David,
Your remark about the Bultaco Mk7 & Mk8 250 as far as eligibility goes, they are the same bike. As long as the swingarm from a Mk 7 (4'' travel) and spacers are put in the forks (to make 7'' travel) The engine internals and barrel are the same.I raced mine at the 07 nats and had no problems and I am sure that there will be some at the 09 nats. Its the 360 Mk8 that is ineligible because the engine had a major power increase over the Mk7.
Comments Please.
So Mk8 250 engine numbers wont present a problem re pre 75 eligibility?
Whats different in the Mk8 360 engine?
-
The Mk7 360 (M121,eligible pre 75 open) was actually a 352cc engine. The new Mk8 (M136) engine had a wider barrel stud spacing,bigger transfer area in the crankcases and cylinder,it was a 363cc engine.
It has been deemed to be a major power improvement from the MK7 engine and does not qualify as a carry on model,therefore pre 78.
The frame on both models (7and8) is essentially the same,the Mk7 had a machined steering head and the MK8 a pressed steering head.The footpeg mounts were slightly different in the way they were welded to the frame.The swingarm was different on the MK8 to allow more travel and the forks were longer,from memory they had 8 1/2" at the front and 6" at the rear.Both easily changed back to 7" and 4".
All Mk8 engines have the ability to have either a left or right hand side gear change.
To allow this it had a rear wheel that allowed the brake/sprocket to be on either side.
As to your question about MK8 250(M135)engines. The Mk8 250 uses the same cylinder as the Mk 6 and Mk7 engine,Cylinder 103.As to it being eligible at the QLD Nats,I think that to be sure it would be best answered by Dave Tanner.
-
Without getting shot down again , who is Dave Tanner ? Is he the man making the rules for VMX bikes?
-
Hornet was that a serious question re DT ?
-
he is the eligilbty scutineer at the nationals ;)
-
Thank you
-
I was told that Micks suzuki was a 75 model not 74
I've stayed out of this up until now because in my mind it was old news and little could be gained by reopening old wounds. However, Mick Cram is the bloke who was also affected by Allbrids disqualification and I think his rep has been tarnished as well as Daves over the years through no fault of his own.
You couldn't meet a nicer bloke than Mick Cram. He's rarely missed a vintage meeting in over 20 years even though he's not exactly being the fastest bloke on the track. He was there at Amaroo Park in 1988 at Penrith Clubs very first vintage meeting and is still coming along despite not being in the best of health. He just loves being a part of the sport and he and his old mate Jens Olsen and their ugly Suzukis have travelled to all corners of the country to race and I'll bet they'll be at Conondale.
I'm pretty sure that after Allbrid handed back his trophy, the accusations started that Crammys TM125 was also illegal. In fact it had passed in scrutineering and was again later proved to be a legitimate 1974 TM 125 model. The bike had a sunburst 1975 tank fitted at the time which is probably what caused the confusion that sticks to this day.
-
Now I have to ask another stupid question . What makes a 75 tank on a 74 illegal ? I am not a blonde , but I just dont get it . ???
-
What makes a 75 tank on a 74 illegal
It doesn't. The accusations were that the bike was a 1975 model when in fact it wasn't, it only had the tank which caused some to think it was a 75 model.
-
I agree with you there about all the bullshit about eligilibity. Thats why i moved to evo class years ago.. less crap and less whining!
Me Too!, Im gunna make all my bikes "Illegal" so I don't get to go and therefore don't have to put up with the pathetic bullshit that goes on with the 75 model bolt in the '74 model bike bullshit bullshit. :-\
-
Meh. Its pretty easy to sort this shit out if you want to sort it out, especaily nowdays when everyone has a chance to have their say via the internet - the truth will come out, and usually quickly. Also worth noting that several people have described that particular year's Nats as being less than wonderful - I'm sure that the Qld people will be very careful to avoid anything similar putting a cloud over their event. In fact, starting this thread was specifically designed to minimise those issues....
Dave Tanner is also a VMX Commissioner for MA, so as well as a better-than-average understanding of stuff, he also has louder-than-usual say in the rules.
-
Oh, and an eligibitly question:
I have a set of 35mm "Betors" from a Cooper. Are they legal for pre-70?
-
Betor Front fork are ok, bultaco, ossa. etc. Betor have been around for a long time.
-
Why do rules turn some of you guys into such drama queens ???
Pre 75 simply means a bike built Pre 75 or from Pre75 parts.
The rules are flexible enough to allow any exhaust, tyres, handlebars or ignitions.
You can port away to your hearts content & use any size carby you wish.
You can use almost any rear shock & internal fork mods.
You just can't use later model parts or over bore outside of the class your running in.
If thats all too hard then build whatever you want & run it at the Classic Dirt events where you are sure to have a ball, but don't be talking the rules up to be so anal because it is only guys that step outside the known boundries that come to grief.
-
I couldn't agree more GMC. All of the stuff mentioned here like the suspect 125SL, that bullshit "riveted CZ hub" thing that's been blown out of all proportion, Crammys TM125 and even the Vern Grayson saga happened 14 years ago ago and since then it's been boringly plain sailing with few dramas. I've been following this thread for years (trust me, it's been going on in one form or another for years) and some guys seem to want to turn simple, easy to follow rules into the Magna Carta. Just build the bike to the simple formula that GMC states "Pre 75 simply means a bike built Pre 75 or from Pre75 parts.
The rules are flexible enough to allow any exhaust, tyres, handlebars or ignitions.
You can port away to your hearts content & use any size carby you wish.
You can use almost any rear shock & internal fork mods.
You just can't use later model parts or over bore outside of the class your running in.
" and you won't have any dramas.
Worrying over how many ribs are on a Yamaha hub is anorak pedantics at best. Use the pre'75 hub (or whatever part is giving you heartburn) and forget everything else. I've been building a long term project DT1 pre '70 bike, don't even own a rulebook and bet it ends up 100% correct because I've kept everything within the era and haven't gone looking for loopholes.
-
Totally with you GMC, AND OOGGY DOGGY, what l raced at nationals that year ( Maico / Honda 125) is dead and berried, l won on the day because l rang the neck out of it, and paid the price by surrendering my win. All l can say now that you fellows get on with it and build your bike to the period. its all in the GCR. end of story.
-
You know, I agree. But:
I am stressing a bit over the Yamaha front hub thing because it means quite a lot of extra work for me, if I need to change it for the Nats.
Previously I'd been comfortable in the belief that the later part was acceptable as it is within the spirit of the era, and clearly offers no performance advantage.
Now we've got a VMX Commissioner and eligibility scrutineer telling me that its not what the rules say, so its not acceptable.
And that's the crux of the matter: Whether we like it or not, there ARE grey areas, and people are going to see the shades of grey differently to each other.
So I want the air cleared before I load up the ute and drive 16 hours - I sure as hell am not interested in driving that far to be told to go home...
-
I agree Nathan, there are some grey area’s that need addressing, & their probably always will be. These threads are always good for bringing stuff out in the open for discussion. The scrutineers can’t be expected to know every detail for every model ever built.
It seems your Yammie front hub dilemma puts you in the same boat as the riveted / bolted hub scenario which as oggy says has been blown out of proportion
The rivets & bolts had nothing to do with the protest, just as the fins on your hub will mean very little either but they will be used as a means of describing the early & later hubs.
I believe it has now been decided that the later hubs are okay on the CZ’s so I would assume the same will happen with the Yammie hubs if someone puts it in writing to the commission.
In the meantime why don’t you just machine all the fins off your hub & if they are truly the same then know one will know which hub you have machined down.
While I have no say it what is allowed on the track I would assume with your situation you would be allowed to ride but may be up for some anal to protest if you win, which will actually make you more famous than the win itself.
-
"Within the the spirit of the era " usually means I haven't read the rule book and I hope that they don't look too closely , or,I know its the wrong part but I'm too lazy to put in the extra effort to find or fit the correct part.
-
Benelli Sei, ran single pot Brembos in 73/74 got a sales pamphlet somewhere here. Legit to me, on pre75 sidecars is not any period "single pot" caliper Ok via the rules?
Ahhh yes my Ducati 750 (1974 model) ran Brembros!!!!
-
should be legal if available prior to 31/12/1974
-
no complants here about using a brembo caliper,the other Qlders won`t care either
-
anyone know if methanol is legal to use in the evo class ???
-
anyone know if methanol is legal to use in the evo class ???
all I found was in the SX MX section 17.4.0.1
must be unleaded
no more than 100ron
contain no additives other than thoses added at the point of manufacture except for:
lubricating oil for 2 stroke engines
upper cylinder lubricant for 4 stroke be readily available from retail petrol pumps within aussie or be a brand fuel homologated by MA that is compatible with fuel Quality aussie standards act 2000
and for Road Racing
Methanol with exception of period 5 solos
or unleaded that is no more than 100 RON
no additives
Aussie Standards act 2000
12.9.3.1 the c of c,steward,scrutineer may direct the administration of fuel tests
looks like Classic has been left behind on the fuel item :-\
another idea we where discussing here at home the other day, is to make it easy for new people to the sport.Print up each individual discipline books.Having that choice of buying/givin which one is needed. 8)
cheers Alison
-
18 Classic Motocross & Dirt Track
18.3.0.1 Methanol is permitted
-
Thanks guys I wasnt shaw so just got of the phone to MA in Melbourne and they confirmed EVO's are now part of the classic group as apposed to pre 85 and pre 90 which are not included , and as such can run methanol ::)
-
18 Classic Motocross & Dirt Track
18.3.0.1 Methanol is permitted
why doesn't it have that in the index (fuel) in the front like the rest of the disciplines :(
saving paper :-\
cheers Alison
-
I have a question re eligilibty, what are the restrictions on Pre 65 carbies, are roundslide Mikunis legal, this a genuine question, I am building up a 67 Husky 250 and do not have a carby for it, a Mikuni would be a good choice.
-
carbies were discussed a few pages back in this topic. have a read back through the pages and see if you find the answer you need there.
-
The Pre 65 class - A matchless running internal ignition, will it need to have a dummy magneto to restore external appearance?
-
I found on page 158 of the MA bible-
rule 18.6.0.1 Engines must remain externally unchanged.
rule 18.6.0.5 Ignition:Any ignition system can be used as long as the external appearance of the engine remains unchanged..
hope this helps ?
cheers
-
The Pre 65 class - A matchless running internal ignition, will it need to have a dummy magneto to restore external appearance?
No. You'll be right.
-
its not even August , and the rulebook people are in full swing already
love you too Walter, :-* sorry for helping a fellow bike enthusiast out.
cheers Alison
-
MIKUNI CARBURETTORS
Hi lads,
I know this has been mentioned before, but I'm still in the dark...
For the national classic titles in 2009.
Can I run a round slide Mikuni carby in the Pre 65 class
Can I run a flat slide Mikuni in the Pre 78 Open class.
Both these bikes are set up with these carbies now and are running perfectly.
Do I have to change both of them to be eligible for both classes.
I'm willing to change them if I have to - I just want a definitive answer.
Cheers,
Mark
-
I wouldn't think you could run a flat slide Mikuni in pre '78 or even evo as they weren't on production bikes til around '82.
-
So what carbies can be used?
This is a list of some common carbies and their availability date:
Lectron (non powerjet) 1976
Lectron powerjet 1979
Mikuni powerjet (roundslide) 1979
Mikuni TM 1982
Keihin PJ 1985
Mikuni TMX 1987
Keihin PWK 1988
Mikuni TMS 1992
Mikuni PM 1998
Keihin PWM 1999
Therefore as the flatslide Mikuni was not available in 1977 it cannot be used in Pre-78.
-
Mboddy, that list of carburetor elegibility you just quoted. It kinda looks official. If so can it be viewed anywhere.
Taa
-
I did a lot of eligibility research when I was the PCRA New Era eligibility guy.
This list is just what I found out.
-
The carb question will be as so.
Pre 78 and older will not be able to use a flat slide
EVO, and Pre 85 will be able to use a flat slide of any type.
211
-
Guys
the minutes of the Commission should be with your state LCBs
Can I suggest if your interested your club gets a copy and responds through their state committee as soon as possible.
I will be available to discuss any aspect of the proposals at CD6 if you want just find 211 and the KK Kompound.
211
-
Pre 78 and older will not be able to use a flat slide
Why not?
-
Therefore as the flatslide Mikuni was not available in 1977 it cannot be used in Pre-78.
because no flatslides were available before 78?
-
because no flatslides were available before 78?
Lectron flatslides were available in 1976.
-
well they should be allowed then but not Mikunis.
EVO, and Pre 85 will be able to use a flat slide of any type.
im not sure how TM mikinis can be allowed in EVO though? i suppose if you have 83 husqvarna which is air cooled, twin shock and drum brake it can go in Evo and since the mikuini TM was out in 82 you can put it on a 83 husky which can be ridden in evo, so to make it fair they allow flatlsides for any bike in evo ???
-
EVO, and Pre 85 will be able to use a flat slide of any type.
Mikuni PMs and Keihin PWMs?
Who has been advising these guys?
-
No Evo bikes came out with a mikuni or keihin flatslide, are they now eligible for the Evo class?
-
Penton GS6 came out with Lectron (non-powerjet) flatslide in 1977 and is Pre-78 and Evo eligible.
-
always some contentious issues, I sympathize a little as the Lectron and EI flatslides have been around since '76 and should in all fairness be legal but...'tis not for me to argue or push eligability issues is it :P ;D
-
Thanks for clarifying the Pre 78 flat slide issue Dave - I'll have to get myself a 38mm round slide!
How about the Mikuni in the Pre 65 Class?
Cheers,
Mark
-
Its not about Eligilibty scrutineering , "but" who has had confirmation of their prefered competition number for the event.
I received mine today in a pleasent email from the race secretary . So far the organisation of the event is very impressive.
Shoey
-
Its not about Eligilibty scrutineering , "but" who has had confirmation of their prefered competition number for the event.
I received mine today in a pleasent email from the race secretary . So far the organisation of the event is very impressive.
Shoey
yep scored our own no 50 ;D
cheers
-
me to Shoey - tried to get in nice and early to keep my number and received confirmation yesterday - looking good.
cheers
Rossco
-
WHy ross who else wanted 666 ?
-
Penton Only fitted A flat slide to the 175cc only in the USA .
KTM made the Bike and Penton fitted it .
Just like Bert Flood did in Oz.
but Bert did it in the 80s
What evo Motor X bike came out OME with a Flat Slide ???????????? None !
-
Yeh I got confirmation on the big #18
sorry Marcus :D
-
http://www.ma.org.au/AM/Template.cfm?Section=MA_Reports&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentFileID=46505
carby info page three
cheers
-
i can not believe this thread is 15 pages long, where have you guys been racing?
if im racing for points its up to me to know or to prove my eligability for a class, and we do that by refering the MA manual, if we all stop reading what isnt written and accept what is instead of twisting it to suite yourself, there will be no ? over eligability.
Cheers Trev.
-
Funnily enough one line wrapped up the whole existence of MNSW
"In the absence of a satisfactory rationale"
-
on ya trev
-
Hallelujah Trevor. Good call.
-
And that why I love Australia, ;D as its a free country to run 15 pages of info for young and old alike on Eligibility scrutineer at the Nationals. ;) ;D
Live and Learn I say 8)
cheers
have a read of the MA minutes and may the pre65 live 8)
-
EVO, and Pre 85 will be able to use a flat slide of any type.
That is not what it says. It says:
18.6.04 b) Flat slide carburettors are prohibited on all machines except EVO and Pre 85.
Non Era parts such as modern flat slide carbies will still be ineligible.
There were only three of you at the meeting Dave.
How come you managed to stuff it up so that Lectrons are not eligible for Pre78?
They were arguably eligible for all three recent classes before this amendment.
Now you have changed the rules to make them not eligible.
-
If it was 15 pages of info that would be a good thing.
-
oh stop it -----its not just us reading this. ;D
c-u-soon
-
From what I have seen sitting on the sidelines all these years VMX is an evolving sport and so riders are entitled to challenge the establishment from time to time where they believe changes can be made - all very democratic.
Where it pisses me off is when well connected or 'influential' people start trying to swing things to suit afew. That is why I like the 'new' fuel rules for example - it brings us all back to earth. So long as bikes are in the spirit of the era I don't see a problem with most things.
The carby rule is a good example - why, if EI and Lectron carbs were available can't they be fitted to any bike of that period. Where you banned from running them then? I doubt it. If on the other hand someone tries to run a Keihin or Mikuni that WASN"T around then more power to the the Commission.
That's why I llike EVO - when it came on the scene it had a simple formula which for the most part still remains.
Off the box
Dave Mac :D
-
The carby rule is a good example - why, if EI and Lectron carbs were available can't they be fitted to any bike of that period.
Until this recent rule change you could.
That's why I like EVO - when it came on the scene it had a simple formula which for the most part still remains.
Until this recent rule change the Evolution (EVO) eligibility was simple because it was all in '18.7.12 Evolution Class- Eligibility'. Now it is not.
The carby rule was the argument that Pre-1978, Evolution and Pre-1985 eligibility was not covered by the rules in 18.5 or 18.6.
The carby rule was nonsense because 18.6.0.4 a) would require that round slide carbs fitted to bikes newer than Pre-1975 had to be Pre-1975.
But now that the 18.6.0.4 b) flat slide rule actually names Evo and Pre-1985 it means that 18.5 and 18.6 do apply to Pre-1978, Evolution and Pre-1985.
So Graeme the webmaster's IT175G is now ineligible for Evo because it has the original roundslide Mikuni Powerjet carby standard.
Also, because Evolution does not mention suspension travel the suspension travel rules in 18.5 now apply.
So you all better modify your rear end so that it does not have more than 102mm (4") travel, etc.
What we really need is to fix the rules rather than apply a couple of poorly thought out bandaids that only make things worse.
Lets have a new thread with some serious proposals to fix the rules in it.
The proposals can be structural; such as putting 18.4 and 18.5 into a new Pre-60 through to Pre-75 Eligibility section.
They can also be details such as:
Add Pre-85 classes to 18.2.2 Classes.
Reword 18.2.3.2 to state Pre-1960 through to Pre-1975.
Add a clause to 18.3.0.4 allowing down pipes for Classic Dirt Track.
Provide a definition for Major Component.
Provide a definition for OEM.
-
Gee. Racing the Nats looks like gangs of fun! :-X Our biggest argument down here is whether we increase the free can at the end of the day from one to two..... :-\
-
Spot on 414, thank goodness we've got Viper in Victoria
Are you going to Barrabool tomorrow for heaps of no bullshit fun ???
Mr Maico #54
-
Dave T - might be time to weigh in here and clear things up. The old addage "if it ain't broke don't f... with it" may well have been a simple one and so was the EVO formula - clarification is required. We want to encourage entry to the sport not thwart it !!!
MA has a funny way of interferring (although I will stand corrected) - Can a FULL PDF file be put on here so everyone knows the current state of play not just a few?
Otherwise why not bring back square race plates and the stupid 'one club rule' ???
Some of the Vic guys might like to expand on the VIPER way of doing things - especially the free can? That sounds good !
Dave Mac :D
-
And while he is at it he can justify why he banned Lectrons from Pre1978 too.
-
What makes Viper so special? I can't remember the last time there was a protest or any bitching about bike eligibility at a Qld vintage MX meeting. It seems to just be the Nationals where all the rulebook nazis come out.
-
Lets give thanks to the rule book nazis , they keep the cheats under control, if you think you can get away with it, dont cry when you get caught out
-
Lets give thanks to the rule book nazis , they keep the cheats under control, if you think you can get away with it, dont cry when you get caught out
They create a lot of bullshit.. There's 17 pages of it right here and the race is still 2 months away!
-
i dont care if this is 1 or 20 pages long. If it has helped people understand the rules and know where they stand then its all for a good cause. Its clear to me that some of the rules are just not clear enough if there is that many people asking questions. I just hope that the people who are not sure of something dont feel that they are asking a silly question and then decide not to speak up if they feel they are going to be shut down for not understanding or knowing the rules. Some Guys have been attending the nationals for years and will know the rules very well, but im sure there will be some racing for their first time and are new to all this, so i think its good of them to ask on here if there is something they are not sure of and for the people who do know the rules to help with any quiries. :)
-
Maicogirl recently heard phoning a Bulgarian Bike Dealer, looking for original muffler packing for her 64gp 500cc Cosac, velly velly interesting :-\ :-\ :-\
Mx Dad
-
The rules are quite clear, it's some peoples understanding of the english language that is the problem. Know what year your bike is then look at the rulebook and see what era it fits into. If it's got later era components fitted then it's not eligible. It's not rocket science.
-
If they build theyr bike to the book and spirit of the era they have nothing to worry .
That is what I thought. Until they just changed the rules and my bike is now not eligible.
-
Which rule was changed.. are you talking flatslide carby's?
-
Which rule was changed.. are you talking flatslide carby's?
Yes.
I have a 1977 Yamaha IT250D with a 36mm non-powerjet Lectron flatslide carby from a 1977 Penton GS6.
I race it in Classic Dirt Track.
-
those that cheat p**s me off , but not nearly as much as those who call someone a cheat but haven't got the balls to lodge a protest, and continue to bitch about it after the event . (put up or shut up)
-
My brother has got a piece of wood with a nail in it.
-
or it is covered by 'must retain OEM appearance/externally unchanged' part of the ruling. So even if a Lectron was fitted to another pre 78 bike as std fitment, if you then fitted it to a IT or another pre 78 bike that originally had a round slide then it is changing the external appearance and not OEM fitment anymore. But then that doesnt make sense because that means you have to take off the lectron on any bike that originally had one fitted in 77 and put a round slide on it but then that is changing external appearance and not be original ??? :-\. You could put a Lectron on a IT back in 77 so i dont know why its just not allowed now. I can see where Mboddy is comming from. To me, not allowing/outlawing parts & mods that were done/could be done and were fitted back in the day is not within the spirit of the era. ;)
-
this is where it's called in the spirit of the sport, :-\
no IT was made with a flat slide! sounds pretty simple to me.
it's fine to sit and say the rules should say this or that but we have another example of twisting the rules UNTIL they suit.
get a grip and race your bike as it was manufactured.
Cheers Trev
-
If they build theyr bike to the book and spirit of the era they have nothing to worry .
That is what I thought. Until they just changed the rules and my bike is now not eligible.
Life sucks I know. If you have a '77 VB Montesa, you have to lower your OEM suspension if you want to fit the rules. However the rules also allow us to run 38mm forks for the same era so I'm pretty happy with that. I know we should march on Parliment over such things but instead we just lower our suspension, go race and win! ;D
-
Maicogirl recently heard phoning a Bulgarian Bike Dealer, looking for original muffler packing for her 64gp 500cc Cosac, velly velly interesting :-\ :-\ :-\
Mx Dad
yes i in two brains over whether to do Nats. OEM muffler packing for Cosac is hand spun beards from Albanian Monks. Very hard get now! Back up bike is T34 but turret is from T62. i think they jump on me for that. ::)
-
Who raced their bikes stock in the day? If we're about "recreating the era", then prohibiting period-possible mods is against the spirit of the era.
My reading of the rules prohibit Lectrons in Evo, but not in pre-78. The carbs were available in 1977 so there's no argument against them. However, the Evo rules say that "bikes must be OEM" - most people's understanding of that incredibly ambiguous rule means that you're not allowed to perform carby swaps.
-
And I'm really getting tired of the attitude that says "If your understanding of the rules is different to mine, then you must be wanting to cheat".
Look at this thread for just one example: It starts with a national commissioner explaining one (presumably official) interpretation, which clears a lot of stuff up and most people are thankful for. Then there are lots more questions, some of which have been answered others have not.
Everybody is keen to know because they want their bike to be legal. We're trying to keep old bikes running - often bikes that were rare 35 years ago, and often bikes that were flawed from new - so commonsense says that people aren't going to keep their bikes 100% original.
Its like all of the angst over the Christian Bible, and the different interpretations of it. But unlike the Bible, the VMX rulebook can be re-written to clear up the ambiguities and to make the rules say what we want them to say.
So why anyone would want to stick their head in the sand and say "Nup, you're alll wrong, my interpretation is the only correct one, there's no problem" is beyond me.
-
Guilt brings out the best in all of us :o
-
However, the Evo rules say that "bikes must be OEM" - most people's understanding of that incredibly ambiguous rule means that you're not allowed to perform carby swaps.
Fair enough.
Looks like we need that definition of OEM before the carby rule is altered.
Dave T; can you contact the other two and get the carby rule change dropped please?
I maintained the PCRA New Era rules for three years and I am willing to offer my time to tidy up Chapter 18.
However, it must be a consultative process. And so we should start that Rules thread on this forum ASAP.
And no mid season rule changes either. It must be completed in time to get into 2010 MoMS or wait for 2011 MoMS.
What do you say Dave?
-
http://www.ma.org.au/AM/Template.cfm?Section=MA_Reports&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentFileID=46505
carby info page three
cheers
It's that time of year again and it only comes once a year-that why I posted up the minutes, to get the info out there to the riders to contact there respective club committees and get the ball rolling...
At least we still have the pre65 class going :o (even if it is small) its available to all owners of pre 65 to use it or loose it . 8)
mboddy maybe us your club :P
cheers
-
. I suspect that the wording on this carby submission has been firked up between the meeting and Daves post and for the life of me can't imagine a pre '78 bike being excluded because it has a Lectron. I'm scratching my head over allowing flat slide Japanese carbies into Evo though. Maybe it's been lost in the translation as well.
get a grip and race your bike as it was manufactured.
Trev..While I've agreed with your previous statements I have to take you to task on the above. In over thirty years in the sport, I've truthfully never raced a bog standard bike. I think I speak for most of us when I say that one of the most basic facets of any motorsport is to modify the vehicle to improve performance and try and gain some advantage over the competition. Modifying vintage motocross bikes is as natural a wearing a helmet. Demanding that bikes be OEM pure would put far too much undue stress on scrutineers.
-
ar magoo there`s that oem again
-
well said firko, i would love to see it kept simple and maybe thats my problem.
anyway im sure we will all have a great time discussing the rules at CD6
Cheers Trev
-
Please be for you go and change the rule because a few on this form
say so
Belive Me A lot of guys who Do race ( more than 1 meeting a year) and racing Old Bike are Very Happpy to go with the Rules .
I have only seen a handfull who dont like rule Because that have some thing
not wright Later Mod Parts . and Want rules Changed .but will not change the Parts..
Thats 1 apple in a Box full .
This is Not the Place to use a Base to Change Rules .
It must come from Club Leavel .
This Must come from the Hard Core of the Vintage Riders who do more than just 1 or 2 meeting a year.
Not From Racers who only come out once a year .
I race 9 rounds of Vintage MX
I do around 7 or more vintage Dt
Jack Hogg DT
Amcross Moden on a Vintage Bike
and 9 round of Mx.on a Vintage Bike .
a Life Member of the ACT.Mcc and a Member of 3 other Clubs
I am a leave 3 Scrutineer and Clark Both MX and DT .
Rule are Rule I do not like a lot of Rule in Life To But thay are all trying to
keep it Fair for All.
NOT just for One or two .
Ps if you have a Lot of time jyou can Read the Rule on Vintage Raceing in the USA ..
and read about One off or Built to Order Bikes Eg Penton .
-
a rule that says period bikes are to be OEM is NUTS. does that include tyre brand? it has been aussie tradition to get the most out of your machinery that you can, meaning that parts available at the time period under discussion are available for utilization. if i new Dr who well in 1957 i would have got some good second hand hot bits off the later models! oops i'm forgetting about inflation.
-
I think you'll find it's ok to fit alloy swingarms, after market pipes, radial heads, better shocks etc as long as they were available in the era.
-
Please be for you go and change the rule because a few on this form say so
Belive Me A lot of guys who Do race ( more than 1 meeting a year) and racing Old Bike are Very Happpy to go with the Rules .
I have only seen a handfull who dont like rule Because that have some thing
not wright Later Mod Parts . and Want rules Changed .but will not change the Parts..
Sorry, but I think I have not been clear about what it is that needs changing about the rules.
It is not to allow something to be eligible that hasn't or vise versa.
It is to improve the readability of the rules and correct some of the ambiguities.
The huge thread about a year ago about what the interpretation of EOM was, and how many different interpretations everyone has about what it means, proves that the rules as they stand are lacking.
The recent rule change that we have been discussing here also proves the point.
I spoke to Dave at the last Nationals about the rules and he said that his intention was for the rules to be clarified.
Unfortunately, because the rules are so poorly structured, the carby rule change has made them worse rather than better.
It must be obvious from the rules what the intention of the rules are. Is it Silhouette racing like the Historic Road Racing where you can fit V-Force reeds and Gold Valve Emulators or do all components have to be of the Era or exact replicas? Or if it is somewhere between both, then what is the rationale behind it.
It must be obvious from the rules what is allowed to be changed from how the bike was as it was originally sold.
For example, it may be obvious that the tyres can be new, but is it ok to fit fatty bars in Evolution?
So there must be definitions of Major and Minor components, and what is meant by OEM, etc.
And if the rules conflict with normal practice then they must be brought in line. For example, down pipes have been used in Dirt Track since before I started racing in the early 70s but the rules as they are do not allow this.
Many people are aware that the rules are sloppy and should be revised.
What better place for an open and transparent discussion of the rules than this forum?
-
Guys
many times before I have said this, the Commission is only taking recomendations it received to the LCBs for agreement or not; you have to understand that the Commission is NOT making the rules, its simply the adminstrative body that collates the requests into a format for the State LCBs to decide.
As for the Lectron issue
NOTE: as the rules stand on this day there are no Lectron carbys allowed no flat slides of any type in fact - period. (there will however; pending the pre approval of the issue from the State LCBs, an allowance for pre 85 and EVO to have these items at this years nationals)
Based on submissions to the Commission it was agreed that there is sufficent evidence to (correctly in my view) allow flat slides of any kind in EVO and Pre 85. There is no dispute that you could buy a non pumper Lectron in 1977, the Commission - again based on the submissions decided not to propose flat slide carbs for pre 78. Its not an issue of Lectrons being available in the period, its about allowing for the correct type available. For example we chose to allow flat slides in EVO, Pre 85 because there are no issues of type (pumper; not pumper; Mikuni ; Lectron etc) There are issues of type in the pre 78 period and the evidence presented while strong suggested that it would be better not to allow these in Pre 78.
The proposals are with you State LCBs, its now the responsibility of the stake holders of the sport - you guys lobby your committee for the outcome that best suits your view of the sport.
Again - based on the response from the State LCBs "AND" the majority view will be the result.
Tanner #211
-
Thanks again for your input Dave, you are right, as it does need to come from memmbers acting within their clubs to put changes forward to the commision, as it should be.
Funny as it is, after years at the helm, not one memmber has put a submission to the committee for change, except the push from the QVMX for Pre85 to be accepted into the GCR's as they are today. So they must all be happy with the wording of the GCR's or accepting of them.
Cheers Trev( awaiting submissions to forward on)
-
oh no, i've done it we're at 19 pages ;D
Still waiting
Trev
-
So just to clear things up ????
Where Flat slides allowed larst year in pre 78 and evo and Now this year thay are not .
is that wrigth ????
-
Yeah i would like to know 100% for sure if flatslides are now allowed on EVO bikes ? because i am in the market for a new carb for my 82 twinshock PE and want to know if can use a flatslide Mikuni otherwise if not, i might get a Dellorto roundside.
If the rules were no flatslides for evo, what happens if you have a EVO bike that came factory fitted with a flatslide (im not sure there is any) would that mean you would have to change it to a roundslide and it would then not be OEM?
-
No evo bike came out OEM with Flat slides.
-
Dave
If type does not matter then is it ok to use powerjets on roundslide Mikunis in either Pre-1978, Evo or Pre-1985?
-
No evo bike came out OEM with Flat slides.
Penton did in 1977.
-
Where Flat slides allowed larst year and Now this year thay are not .
I was a Scrutineer at the Australian Classic Dirt Track Titles last year.
I entered my 1977 IT250D in Pre-1978 250cc with a non-powerjet Lectron. I had a roundslide Mikuni with me that I could use if needed.
I had full supporting documentation for the Lectron with me all weekend.
At scrutineering I spoke to Dave who was the MA Eligibility Scrutineer for the event just to make sure that my interpretation of the rules matched his.
He said that he did not need to see my documentation because as far as he was concerned there was no problems with using a non-powerjet Lectron in Pre-1978.
-
No evo bike came out OEM with Flat slides.
Penton did in 1977.
Pre 78 /= Evo ???
-
No bike came OEM with Fox Airshox either but they're legal. While ever the term OEM is used in the rulebook there will be confusion, it should be deleted immediately.
-
A couple of things; my 2 bobs worth; that come to mind in regards to the Pre-78 & Evo legalities...
If a bike came out in 77 with over 9in of travel eg Montesa Capra, why would you penalise the rider and the marque for this. Monties didn't exactly overstay there time in the sun did they? Some might say Monty riders have spent to much time in the sun though . Just an idea, but why not make it 10in for this class and then others could use fork kits / modifications that were available Pre-78 to make it 9.6in or whatever.
In my experience,Flatslides are not worth the trouble. They are harder to jet right-when retro fitted , and the slides wear quicker than the rounds- in Miks anyway.
These regulations are a work in progress but with good consultation, common sense and a "Spirit of the Era" approach, it can't be that hard...can it?
-
Two "p"s in Cappra
-
Im going to comment here guys, just collecting the thoughts, may start a clean thread to re focus what we are attempting to do.
Dave
-
The Only thing that need to be added to the
EVO part of the rule is
Bike must be OEM or have parts that are Made to replace OEM with in Spirt of Erea.
this stops guys fitting later mod parts to ther Evo bikes or
to any bike Pre 78 pre 75 and pre 85
Some one did write that every rider as the wrigth to mod he bike to make it go farster.
This is true..
But what are we in VINTAGE MX for
It is to ride the Bike that were made in the year we Love the Most.
Or the Bike we loved to have when we were a younger Man.
There is a lot of us out ther that just love doing that rideing that bike .
But a few want to chane the bike to something that was not made .
Hot up a bike to win and yea that ok .
But to fit parts that from a newer bike is Not in the sprit of the erea.
A lot of new guys who look at the sport come a long and Look be for that come and Ride .
Thay check out bike and take photos and than chase parts up.to Build the Bike thay have at home in the shed.
Thay see that newer and better parts have been fiterd and thay do the same .then the true bike get lost and then it go on and on.
I could go on but this has take me a hour to type
-
well said oz ;), i think i expressed the same view earlier, about 18 pages ago and some are still going on. as i have said you should be able to race your era without all this twoing and froing if you are prepared not to twist the rules to suite your personal case, in other words, race to the spirit of your class and era and not for the mantel piece, i will get beaten by everyone in my class, but my bikes will be a true representation of class and era! after reading the MOM's i cant see where the problem is, i have pre 78 and evo bikes as produced and i will rock to scurtineering and pass whitout any prob's.
just to add you can still buy mikuni carbs are per standard and shocks and pistons and anything else you would like if you look hard enough, no excuse if you ask me!
I'm sure i will upset someone but hey, in the spirit of Vinatge Motocross, if you can prove it's legal, you cant be stop from racing, but it comes back to you to show proof as stated in the MOM's, so instead of the why not attitude, bring along the proof and say this is why i can do this or have that mod.
Are we at page 20 yet
Cheers Trev( sure to be beheaded at CD6)
-
Amen.
-
well said oz ;), i think i expressed the same view earlier, about 18 pages ago and some are still going on. as i have said you should be able to race your era without all this twoing and froing if you are prepared not to twist the rules to suite your personal case, in other words, race to the spirit of your class and era and not for the mantel piece, i will get beaten by everyone in my class, but my bikes will be a true representation of class and era! after reading the MOM's i cant see where the problem is, i have pre 78 and evo bikes as produced and i will rock to scurtineering and pass whitout any prob's.
Trev, you've side-swiped a really significant point there.
Here's two things to think about:
1. We're talking about dirt bikes that are a minimum of a quarter of a century old. LOTs of parts are unavailable/unreasonably expensive, and if we were to strictly enforce period parts, it would increase the costs like crazy - this would drive most people out of the sport.
Imagine what a set of crappy old Mulhollands would be worth if we were forced to run period shocks, for example.
Similarly, inagine the drama if we had to run period tyres or hand grips or air-filters.
Now, you might say "But nobody cares about things like grips, it would be stupid to enforce only period grips" - and you'd be right.
But where do you draw the line? Everybody has their own limits to what is acceptable and what isn't. I know people who won't even consider fitting non-original grips to their bikes, while I know others that are happy to push every rule to its limit.
Most of us fit somewhere between those two extremes, but we all have different opinions - and that's why we're at 20 pages.
2. Most of us are keen to go as fast and be as competitive as we can, legally. The curse of every historic racing category is knowing whether to allow new technology of not - and once you've decided whether its acceptable or not, the next challenge is working out how to write a rule that adequately reflects this decision.
As an example, look at modern style 'fat bars'. Personally, I hate the look of them on Evo and earlier bikes and would not be the slightest bit upset if the were banned. So let's assume that we're going to write a rule that prohibits them. How do you write that rule?
If you simply say "Handlebars without cross-braces are not allowed" then you rule out the old school solid alloy bars which plenty of people use and clearly are a period part.
If you say "Handlebars must be 7/8" in diameter" then you rule out the bikes that came with 1" bars standard.
Etc.
And that's the other reason we're at 20 pages.
Not many of us really want the rules changed. But everyone wants the rules to be clear and easily understood so that the playing field is level.
No matter what your opinion on what the rules should clearly say, if we could achieve this, it would be a huge step foward.
-
And just like religion, everyone is happy with their beliefs/understanding of the rules, and they'll all swear black and blue that they've understood correctly and that everyone who disagrees is wrong.
Imagine how much less shit the world would have, if every religious person interpreted their holy book in exactly the same way as every other person of their religion.... ;)
Unlike followers of the Bible/Koran/etc, we have the opportunity to modify our 'holy book' to make that dream a reality.
-
here here Nathan its a cultural thing ;) ;D
-
Ladies and gents - I know this has been covered elsewhere (and maybe even in this thread) but too lazy tonight to look - are crossbar pads now compulsory at Nats level?
ta
Rossco
-
yep, sure are. i think,maybe or maybe not :D
page 146 of the MOM's under gcr's, point 17.2.1.5. unless you say they are only talking about Motocross and not classic motocross,but if we go to page 91 ,. point 12.1.0.2 i think we then have to refer back to motocross in the gcrs and yes you do i think ;D
Cheers Trev( that ones for Nathan) how sad is that 11.30 at night and i'm reading the MOM's!
-
Take em just in case Rossco----they don't take up any room ;D
cheers
-
Hey Rossco, you should be ok, you've got one built in.
-
Magoo - all I can say is that consistently you achieve the standard to which we have come to expect from you!!!! ;D ;D
luv ya
Rossco
-
I was looking forward to page 30! :-\
-
Bar-ends? How do people sit with them.... :-\. Can't live without 'em I say. Where else would you put your throttle and clutch and ............
-
really, bar ends is the best you can come up with just to take us to 21 pages?
i think we should be talking about saftey issues like sproket covers meeting the MOM's, helmets, self returning footpegs, steering head bearings, wheel bearings , and anything that effects safe riding not this whinging about why the rules dont suite me.
simple fix, all bikes to meet the OEM for class, no less, then we would have a true representation of era and sport! ;D
hanging myself out to dry
Cheers Trev
-
JUST REGARDING FOOT PEG RETURN SPRING AT THE NATS I HAVE A TM250 DO I HAVE TO PUT THEM ON EVEN THOU THEY DID NOT COME OUT BACK IN 74. DREW
-
I think this one has already been covered - answer was yes - return springs required.
Rossco
-
THANKS FOR THE REPLY LOOKS LIKE A BIT MORE WORK IN THE SHED. DREW
-
I have been following this thread but cant remember anybody talking about this but helmets will be looked at through a magnifying glass. Rusty buckles and sus chips or if it looks like it has had a hard impact and you will fail. They have cracked down in the moderns and it has started in vintage as well.
-
Re Worms last post, and I quote: Simple fix, all bikes to meet OEM for class, no less, then we would have a true representation of era and sport.
Sounds good to me.
-
I have been following this thread but cant remember anybody talking about this but helmets will be looked at through a magnifying glass. Rusty buckles and sus chips or if it looks like it has had a hard impact and you will fail. They have cracked down in the moderns and it has started in vintage as well.
This offends me.
This is how car scrutiny happens, and it is an absolute crock - people get told to buy a new helmet because there's a minor chip in the gel-coat, or whatever.
I currently own four helmets:
1. Took a solid thump when I fell off my MTB many years ago.
2. Has had little use and have never been 'used', but has a few nicks in the graphics and fails car scrutiny.
3. Took a solid thump when I broke my leg at Buladelah last year.
4. Is my 'good' one, bought to replace #3.
The thing is that both of the two damaged ones look fine (if you ignore the broken peak on #3), and #1 sailed through 4 or so years of car event scrutiny.
Personally, I'm a LOT happier with the idea of #2 on my head, but this illogical idea that cosmetics somehow relate to safety means that I can use it. The same illogical rule encourages me to use either of the helmets that have already done their job, and have much, much to offer in any future crashes.
Similarly, a bit of surface rust on a cheaply chromed buckle has no relevance to the helmet's performance when it matters.
If you took a helmet with a buckle that was rusted halfway through and a strap that was cut halfway through, and then tested the strength of the strap assembly, you'd find that the wearer would be in a world of trouble well before either helmet component failed....
MA has/had been doing it right - check for standards approval, check for obvious, significant and relevant defects. And never forget that the person wearing the helmet has the best knowledge of the helmet and has the most to lose if they make an overly gung-ho decision...
-
Nathan, its all to do with insurance and duty of care as officials, it might get up your nose, but if the insurers say this is what they require and i'm the official, i couldnt care less if you know when and where you come off your bike or less your opinion on whether you think its safe to wear or not.
maybe you should become an official, it would help you understand why some rules are there to protect the folks running your race meets.
Cheers Trev
-
Boy I wounder if all helmets fit people with big heads ;D
-
im thinking off sending a 69/360 square barrell maico to the nationals for a victorian to ride ,my question is. are alloy swing arms legal in pre 70 .if so what type
-
all bikes to meet OEM for class, no less, then we would have a true representation of era and sport
Are you forgetting that there was aftermarket parts and mods around in that era/period? They are an important part of the era/period aswell so shouldnt be left out. If there was going to be rules that say we cant modify our bikes then every one may as well be supplied exact identical bikes for example YZ or RM 250's or black and gold no name bikes and then everyone races them. How boring would that be if everyone had the same bike and you were not allowed any modifications or customization ::) Having all bikes be as exactly as they werw from new/as OEM is not a true representation of the era to me and its an unrealistic expectation to think that should be the way it has to be.
I think someone mentioned this before, but who raced a stock bike back then? 99% of people did some mods and customization to their bikes so its nothing new now.
-
Nathan, its all to do with insurance and duty of care as officials, it might get up your nose, but if the insurers say this is what they require and i'm the official, i couldnt care less if you know when and where you come off your bike or less your opinion on whether you think its safe to wear or not.
maybe you should become an official, it would help you understand why some rules are there to protect the folks running your race meets.
Cheers Trev
Mate... I've been through the CAMS official's shit multiple times. I've done the scrutineering and event administration (aka Event Secretary) courses, as well as actually having done a truck-load more officiating stuff. Don't try pulling the "ungrateful, ignorant, non-contributing competitor" line on me because it is a long way from the mark, and it won't work.
I'm telling you right now: Picking on this sort of shit places the scrutineer at more risk, not less.
If your job is to check a helmet for a standards label, and a functioning strap, its clear and easy. But the instant you're asked to make a value judgement on the condition of a helmet, you're asking for an arse reaming because you've officially said "Yes, this helmet is safe to use", when you actually have NFI whether its safe to wear or not.
In a coroner's court, I would hate to be saying "Yes, I inspected the helmet and told the rider that it was safe to wear" - to say that is basically asking for an arse reaming.
I'd be a lot happier saying "I checked the helmet, and it met the required Australian Standard and was not visibly modified, as per my duty as a scrutineer" - this can easily be defended because you're not being asked to make a judgement that's outside your skills/training/testing equipment.
If the scrutineer is expected to make, and be accountable for, a value judgement regarding non-visible, un-disclosed damage to helmets, then the only logical conclusion is to insist on everyone having a brand new helmet for every event.
The Two Golden Rules of managing your exposure to risk as an official are:
1. Follow written procedures (don't make anything up);
2. Don't make decision on matters that you are not formally trained in.
-
It's about this time I am reminded of a quote of a towering economic thinker of our time whose name alludes me at the moment and it goes thus.
There are those who dont know and those who dont know they dont know. Please dont take offence as I am sure he was refering to economic forecasters .
-
good morning Nathan
sometimes things are just what they are, fortunately my officials licence has expired today and no longer shall i need to explain why a helmet dose not fit the required std's set out to race, expamle tell a bloke his helmet is stuffed, but hey i paid $100 for it 20 years ago and i think its allright, not my problem anymore.
as to my curse reply last night, i would like to of said the same but maybe with more text so as not to get up anyones nose, but as i finilised my fathers affairs yesterday, i appologise wholeheartedly for typing without consideration.
and yes Graham you are right.
just forget i was here, Trev
-
Trev,
Don't take it too personal.Lifes to short ;D
Think of it like this,...... if you helped one person ,you have actually contributed to many others even if you don't realize it.
Your knowledge is a useful and powerful thing weather others agree or not..stay cool. 8)
cheers
-
the only scrutineering that will happen at the Nationals will be machine excamination, you will not have eligibility scrutineering unless your bike is protested and it goes thru the COC and then the Steward who will then refer the matter to the Eligibility Scrutineer. Your bike will be inspected for safety first.
This event is intended to highlight our sport, with 300 expected competitors, we are not going to be over zealous about every bolt and nut or design mod as long as it fits your era!
We must keep the spirit in the sport even at this level!
Trev
-
Gents, and for those like Rossco who have read the MOMS..footrests must be "self returning"..does not mention anything about springs... :)
-
yeah
nothing about spring loaded fottpegs, ; "self returning" is the phrase
a lot of Huskies are folding ,without springs
-
On the helmet thing, your lucky we're not back in the ACU days when you had your helmet inspected at the first meeting of the year and had it recorded and sticker'ed, then after it was 3 years old reguardless of condition. It could no longer be used in competition again!
-
Re Worms last post and particularly his last sentence and I quote " even at this level we must keep the spirit of the sport". Kinda sums it up pretty well in a commonsense sort of way dont you think.
-
Just had a look through an August 1975 Dirt Bike mag, with a feature on Lectron flat slide carbs. It refers to Bart Markel using one for a full year, so they may even have been available pre75! God, what a can of worms for eligibility scrutineers. Wouldn't be one for quids at National level. Having said that, it's up to the riders to do the right thing, and there wouldn't be any hassles.
Mike
-
Yammiefan - I didn't go back and chase it up but I think Gorby from Tassie who was a scrutineer at last years Nationals said somebody told him (this gets good doesn't it???) that the pegs only had to be folding as they went through scrutineering and he was let through but on further investigation they had to be returning - hence the comment about springs. As I said it has been covered elsewhere but I couldn't find it. For the sake of a $3 spring added to my pegs I ain gunna argue with ya :D
Rossco
-
Foot pegs 12.8.5.1 a well rounded and no dangerous edges due to wear
b Hinged or pivoted Controlled by a return spring
came from Gorby's post - amazing what ya can do when you have a look.
Rossco
-
And then...wait there is more...in the section that deals specifically with Classic Motocross
"18.3.0.5 Self returning folding footrests must be fitted."
Amazing when you look in the correct place...... ;)
-
yeah
nothing about spring loaded fottpegs, ; "self returning" is the phrase
a lot of Huskies are folding ,without springs
so whats the ruling now ???
do we definitely need springs or do we not need them? some say you do, others say you dont. Im confused :-\
-
In the 2009 MoM's For all disciplines.
12.8.5.1 – footrests must:
(a) Be well rounded and designed so as to ensure that no dangerous edges are created due to wear.
(b) Not touch the ground at lean unless they are hinged or pivoted and controlled by a return spring.
What about dangerous edges not due to wear … hope MA doesn’t look at some of the footpegs available as standard equipment as well as the aftermarket ones … there are some that would slice straight through to the bone ….
-
My understanding of the section relating to Classic MX is that it is in addition to the "all disciplines" and those rules contained in CMX "override" the all disciplines stuff...so in that way we are allowed to run methanol etc... so the footpegs only need to be folding...
But you are right ...some of the modern footpegs will open up a calf at 20 paces ...OUCH!!
-
Or open up someones neck. I like wide pegs but some of aftermarket ones are deadly looking. Personally I do not think there is any place for non-rounded teeth pegs on a race bike.
-
23 pages-One more pick ,eggilabilty oops eligiblity try again ELIGIBILITY. ;) ;D
cheers
-
Dave - how did the feedback session surrounding eligability go at CD6 - was there anything worth mentioning on here that came from it?
thanks
Rossco
-
http://ozvmx.com/community/index.php?topic=8057.0
-
thats why I thought I would ask here - stunned silence?
-
well i guess we just have to patient i guess
-
Dave - how did the feedback session surrounding eligability go at CD6 - was there anything worth mentioning on here that came from it?
It didn't happen. Probably a good decision.
-
thanks Firko.
-
Can anybody let me know the ruling regarding folding footrests, will a metisse with the original strap footrests be allowed?
-
Can anybody let me know the ruling regarding folding footrests, will a metisse with the original strap footrests be allowed?
the strap footrests sound interesting ....
MA book says 18.3.0.5 Self returning folding footrests must be fitted.
cheers
-
You'll need folding footpegs on that Metisse.
-
Once they fold just Zip tie a half piece of rubber tube down the peg at the pivot. the peg can move up where the split is but the other side then folds up and pushes it back down if your foots off it, cheap easy and legal, the way i read that is it only has to return, so even the TM OK as it falls back under its own weight, so its still self returning.
-
Freaky - I think the wording is specific - controlled by a spring?
-
Nope. the word spring is NEVER mentioned, it only has to self return, its a matter for the scrutineer on the day to decide whether it returns fast enough by itself, not how or by what mechanism.
the folding clause is only there so if the bikes falls it doesnt dig in and flip, the returning part is just so you can find your footing if for some reason it has the need too after it has come up.
Find me the wording that specifies the action or mechanism by which it returns.
Folding is a given , returning however is a matter for taste and good sence only.
-
Hi
All you rule book Nazis out there, stop being so PEDANTIC.
L O L
-
Hi
All you rule book Nazis out there, stop being so PEDANTIC.
:D hey some of us live and breath pedantic :D
cheers
-
I didnt have to use my rule fool tool (4x2x 3")at CD 6 ,and I hope I dont have to use it at the nationals . >:(
ah ,so you are going to the Nationals then ;D -- taking the red Wasp ?
cheers
-
Freaky - read back through the posts!
12.8.5.1 a well rounded and no dangerous edges due to wear
b Hinged or pivoted Controlled by a return spring
And I am not getting tied up in rule fools either (love that Wasp) so for the sake of a $3 spring why not ensure compliance instead of trying to interpret otherwise!
Bye
-
Hi
Rules that apply to Classic Motorcross over ride the General ( All Disciplines) rules ; for example
12.9.5, Homologation of Fuel;
"Unleaded fuel produced by an oil company for sale in the Australian general transport fuel market through retail petrol pumps in at least 3 states does not have to be homologated ".
See rule 18.3.0.1
in Classic Motorcross, Methanol is permitted .
or do only some of the rules count?,
-
thanks Ross, as allways we need to look further, the ALL DISCIPLINES chapter means just that and overides all other chapters in the MOM's, just like the GCR's for a National competition, and yes if you only read half of it thats all you will get out of it!
i will add, that this is only a saftey issue and nothing to do with Eligibility in any way, so you cant protest someone because they dont have springs on their footpegs!
keep it simple guys and do as some are doing and ask for a formal request from MA or your state body to clarify rules and why they have been in place, like a current ? why when a bike is made with fixed footpegs does someone have to change the bikes integrity to meet the MOM's as they are worded.
cheers Trev
-
Hello to Rosco and Worms..here it is direct from the MOM's..
12.1 APPLICATION OF CHAPTER
12.1.0.1 The Rules set out in this chapter are for
all disciplines.
12.1.0.2 Unless otherwise stated, the requirements
of any discipline-specific chapter override
the requirements of this chapter.
So ..in simple terms once again..the discipline specific chapters "over-ride" those in "all disciplines"...ssssoooo.....self returning ...no springs required.....Walter ..get me that peice of wood ;)
-
Why would you not want spring or sume type of spring to return the foot peg??????
You go over a Jump lets say Drunks Hill and you do the big W with leg in
the Air and feet off the pegs and lets say that one of the pegs flip up ....
and when go to land it you have no peg to put your foot and it hits the ground and you bust a Foot or your leg ...
What a great thing to do .
Just put spring on you pegs and Stop turning people off the Nats
-
If they flip up on their own they should also go down on their own . if someone is paranoied about that , they fit a spring . If they are not , they dont fit a spring . Why make things complicated
Good one Walt. ;)
-
loook.......................anything is possible - just ask murphy.................and sometimes I think he was an optimist! ;D
-
actually - on a slightly different note. Does anybody know how entries are going for the Nats - numbers?
-
THE LAST WORD! NO SPRINGS ON FOOTPEGS, NO RIDE, FINALE.
INTERPERATE HOWEVER YOU LIKE.
AND YES THERE IS ABOUT 180 ENTERED,
Trev
-
I've deliberately kept out of this discussion but felt that it was time I put my 2 bobs worth in. With respect Trev, I haven't got return springs on my Wheelsmith peg equipped Maicos and they've never been knocked back in scrutineering. I also had a little input into the preparation of Black Betty (ESO Metisse)for the Wagga Dirt Track Nats and it didn't have footpeg return springs and they passed it without comment. Many others are in a similar situation without return springs and haven't previously had any scrutineering problems. . My newly restored Boyd and Stellings Suzuki has no provision for springs and it would require some major re engineering to fit them. Many specials like mine built in the old days are in the same boat. My understanding is that as long as the peg returns under its own weight (or gravity) it's deemed as a returning footpeg. I'd hate to see bikes knocked back or worse, not entered because of a wrongful interpretation of a rule.
* I was just about to send this when I thought of another situation where ALL of the competing bikes have no return springs. On dirt track sliders the swinging right side peg never has a return spring and as they operate under the same regulation, they set a precendent that should be adhered to.
-
THE LAST WORD! NO SPRINGS ON FOOTPEGS, NO RIDE, FINALE.
INTERPERATE HOWEVER YOU LIKE.
AND YES THERE IS ABOUT 180 ENTERED,
Trev
First of all: I have foot-peg return springs on the bikes I'm bringing.
Secondly: The Manual doesn't say that you need springs. If the Supp Regs don't add a requirement for springs, then it will be impossible for anyone to demand springs.
End of story, like it or not.
Scrutineers are there to enforce the rules as written, nothing more or less. A scrutineer who invents rules or comes up with his own interpretation of the rules, is both hurting the sport, and inviting an arse reaming if things go pear shaped.
-
18.3.0.5 Self returning folding footrests must be
fi tted.
all this talk about spring return is bs as the meeting would have to on been approved by a controlling body of the ma classic body or something like that.if it is not in the gcrs and it isnt it cant be enforced.these races ar approved by a comittie bound by ma gcrs and if not in sup regs it is not enforcable
and it isnt
18.1 All machines entered must comply with the current GCRs for Classic Motocross competition. from sup regs so all this talk about spring loaded foot pegs is bs and nobody at the meeting has the power to eliminate you from the event for this as it is not a rule
jim
non mx rider but dirttracker same rules apply
-
12.8.5 Footrests
12.8.5.1 Footrests must:
a) Be well rounded and designed so as
to ensure that no dangerous edges
are created due to wear.
b) Not touch the ground at lean unless
they are hinged or pivoted and
controlled by a return spring.
this is the modern rule for foot pegs only need spring when footrest touches the ground at lean.so if you drag you footrest on the ground when you lean your bike you need springs other wise you dont end of story
-
Just cable tie the spring to the footpegs ;D ;D ;D
-
ok, i'm still waiting on answers from MA for all concerned but there is NOBODY able to clearly answer the GCR's as they are written, so i have gone to state body for answers and still no reply! but, it falls under safety and NOT eligability
just put the $3 spring on and come race, i'm Over it.
Cheers Trev
-
only in thailand ;D ;D ;D
-
I refer back to my original post, Show me where it says every footpeg must have a spring fitted . ::)
NO-where does it say in the rules you need to have a return springs fitted to Footpegs, they should out of courtesy self return and pivot to cover ANY saftey issue where possible.
AS i stated the rubber tube over the pivot point ensure it returns every time and is legal.
THERE is Absolutely NO need for any reason safety or otherwise to have to modify a frame, drill holes, Zip tie or otherwise molest a frame to "hang" a spring on just to follow a made up "interpretation" and basically just making it look like you want it to be rather than an actually function piece, whats the point. :(
and why would you bother asking MA ? unless its roadrace dont expect an answer from those peanuts. its our sport let those who ride decide. this is a dead debate.
Just As Nathan said : [/quote] A scrutineer who invents rules or comes up with his own interpretation of the rules is inviting an arse reaming.
[/quote]
-
this is it, direct from our governing body.
Fixed footpegs are not allowed in our discipline of the the sport.
all footpegs to be folding and controlled by a SPRING!
end off debate, not my ruling and i cant change it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
cheers Trev, i'm off to have a beer.
if you dont agree PLEASE ring MA or your local body
-
Who's governing body ? IF you mean MA NAtional you'd want to get David white off his arse and get that out exactly the wording and conditions of specifications in a press release, 90 days before the event and re-issue all supp regs. What do you mean you cant change it, Worms, if your running the event im not sure why the hell you even brought this up or got them involved for a ruling, you made it happen no one else, so you fix it.
# note to all you Guys with Suzuki TM's better forget going as well, where are you going to fit a spring ?
ahhh well if thats your take on it, thats half the field gone, way to kill the event guys. ::)
i knew there was a reason why this even shouldnt have gone to the banana benders ;D ........and you where the guys that complained about how Tassie ran it. ::)
-
i have had a ma deligate look at this and as the rules state you dont need springs so worms can i have the gov body contact so it can be taken up by ma delegate
thanks
jim
-
please contact Lindsey Granger from MQ on 07 32812255
-
JIm get a call into NAtional MA and get them to overrule local "Bjelke-Pederson" idiology for the sanity of the rest of the country please.
-
rang and got told he is not in today so left a message for him to ring me.
let you all know the out come.
-
I marvel at this thread. Rules are wonderful things but so open to interpretation. My RM has folding pegs but no spring. I have always passed srutineering, even at modern meetings, by using a rubber band. As I see it, 'spring' is not defined. A spring, according to any number of dictionaries, is:
An elastic contrivance or body, as a strip or wire of steel coiled spirally, that recovers its shape after being compressed, bent, or stretched.
That's a rubber band to me. I'd like to see someone argue that a rubber band is not 'legal' using the MoMS.
Fixed pegs could be another story I guess.
-
Greame, i have no issue with the pivoting thing, but the Returning spring crap is a Wind up.
"Self returning" thats the only ruling - self return means that, it returns under its own steam, no implied time limit , not implied outside asistance no implied method or mechanical return, "it just returns to where it was before."
IM not sure how this story even got legs, but Its a prity bloody simple, if it goes off the horizontal plane it only needs to return to horizontal, there is no need to inflect some statement to specify the mechanics of how the peg achives this. There is no way this can be inforced.
-
Dear Freakshow, as there is nobody home at MA at the moment i went to the next level which is MQ, i have relayed to all the General managers position on the question at hand, as you all will be scrutineered by a level 4 official for machine safety, dont know if you did this in Tassi or not, they will be your judge and MA has indicated an enforcement of those gcr's and not any LOCAL RULES AS YOU IMPLY. For F##K sake $3 springs.
you know what i will give you $6 if you come, to pay for the springs( if your bikes upside down do the pegs return.)
the local peanut farmer, Trev
-
Trev, the point is that some classic bikes aren't set up to run springs without serious modifications. As many haven't had to deal with this before it's not as $3 simple as you imply.....that's the dilemna, not how much they cost.
Why is this such a big scrutineering foo foo raw now in the twenty first year of vintage motocross when it's never previously been a worry? Methinks eligibility on a few bikes I spotted at CD6 will be more of a "problem" than whether a footpegs return journey is propelled by a spring or not.
-
i agree with you firko, if only i wrote the rules.
also, since when can anyone include GRAVITY as an integeral part of your machine, if we did it's uses would be endless, upside-down forks arent really upside-down. oh my tyres arent flat on top, you wouldnt need bolts in your seat as gravity holds it there,
Come on guys, there's got to be more uses for gravity i just cant htink of them at the moment.
i think it's getting to me, but hey i will just slag of at Tassie to make me feel better!
-
yeah i would hate to have to fit them to the old british bikes. It is so confusing. Just when i thought it was all cleared up and you dont need springs then someone says 100% you do need springs. I just dont know but i will keep watching this to get the final definite answer. Seems a shame if you gotta do some serious mods to fit 'wire' springs to an otherwise period bike.
-
Given that the GCRs say:
Foot pegs 12.8.5.1 a well rounded and no dangerous edges due to wear
b Hinged or pivoted Controlled by a return spring
..while the Classic MX regs say:
"18.3.0.5 Self returning folding footrests must be fitted."
...and we know that the Classic Regs over-ride the GCRs (as they should, as 12.8.5.1 is clearly written with road racing as its primary focus).
So the only logical interpretation is that if springs were needed for Classic MX, then the Classic MX regs would specifically mention springs, rather than the vague term "self-returning".
The Manual is a regulatory document - its not camp-fire talk where details are left out simply because they take too long to say... If the manual wants it to be so, then the manual spells it out. And if the manual doesn't spell it out, then obviously the manual does not want it to be so.
And I'm sorry Worms, but the word of some MQ office worker is nothing more than an opinion - and it has no more (or less) weight than anyone in this forum's opinion.
If this issue really got nasty (eg: People being sent home from the event), it would go to the stewards and then the Eligibility commission, and your argument would lose, sooner or later.
And when we can ride our bikes upside down, then I'll happily accept that gravity does not provide adequate self-returning of footpegs. ;D
I just don't understand why its so crucially important for this to be enforced.
On one hand, you've got several people saying "I won't come if this is enforced", "Plenty of bikes never had srping loaded footpegs", "Many footpeg-springless bikes have been ridden in many VMX events in the past without drama", etc.
On the other hand, we've got "But you need springs!".
-
Imagine all the non forum users travelling unsuspecting all the way to Queensland to be greeted with this new rule . Enough to turn many off for good , thats for sure.
exactly what i was thinking. There would still be many people who are planning to race but do not use the internet or view this forum.
-
the forum has been asking for clarifcation of this rule, and you've been given it,
has it been asked if this rule will be enforced at the Nationals, the instruction from MA and it's eligability scrutineer is YES.
how it is worded, well, the question has been asked and asked and asked and at least i got an answer from Lindsey< who is the GM for MQ, and not just the guy you want to talk to is on holidays for 2 months from MA.
just think, if it had been left alone we could have handle it on case by case assesment but you guys have brought to the rule book NAZI's. clarify this or clarify that, if any of you had raced in Qld you would of known the way we do things and accept all bikes arnt the same.
but , lets do our best to undermine an event, because that is all you are doing.
people would have come, ridden without springs($3) and certainly not sent home as some emply, some would of come with fixed foot pegs and NOTHING would of been said, but i think it comes down to group of small minded people intent, and probally arnt even coming to the event, f##king it up just to bignote.I am a major sponsor for the event, and i am wondering what the f##k for.
-
Trev, I am not having a go at you in saying what I am about to. I know how frustrating this whole thing is. But it's the sort of thing that happens all the time. A rule is a rule. And it's interpretation has to be clear or the next thing you know someone's in trouble. You can't say "if we hadn't asked it'd be OK". Either it is or it isn't.
And if the MoMS very clearly says one thing, how can MA say another? Are the rules there to be some sort of flower arrangement dependent upon who's scrutineering, what state the event is held in and what mood the steward is in? Surely not?
That said, if the rule is to be enforced as meaning a metal return spring is required, then don't bother arguing it. State that it is so and leave it be. At least people know what they have to work with then...
-
JIm get a call into NAtional MA and get them to overrule local "Bjelke-Pederson" idiology for the sanity of the rest of the country please.
Instead of ranting and raving here, why dont you call yourself? Emails are free if the cost of a call is too much.
You have had a couple of swipes at Queenslanders. What the problem is?
Blokes like Trev must be doing something right, as its going great guns up here.
hoWS ThE sCEne doWN tHrerE!???
The rule sucks, thats a given. You cant shoot the messenger.
-
dirt track sliders dont have to have any bull shirt springs on the rght hand side and they come under the same gcrs as mx bikes.the foot peg folds down and up just by gravity.modern or classic no difference.
so how can this rule be ok for 1 and not the other. when you buy a brand new 1 it come with swinging rhs foot peg no springs.
-
and to add, NONE of this shit went on prior to Tassi, Coffs or even WA, all you have done is keep shoving it down peoples throats until it starts to stick. not one negatitive word was ever said about these events or even 226 pages of shit that has brought nothing but more stupid questions, i have never knocked a rider or bike back at an event, but you all want the last word from MA, so what now is going to happen probally wont be in the interest of the sport, SO THE WHOLE TREADH SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE WEB AS NOTHING CAN GAINED FROM IT ACCEPT BRINGING AN EVENT INTO CONTINUED DISPUTE, WHERE AS IF TREATED LIKE PAST NATIONALS WITHOUT ALL THIS, IT WOULD HAVE FLOWED LIKE EVERY OTHER EVENT WE RUN UP HERE, BRILLIANT!
SORRY GRAMAME, I THINK ENOUGH DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE!
Trev
-
I had a tm125 and hated the fact that it didnt have return springs. You would come out of a rutted corner and find the footpeg was gone as the dirt would hold it up. They do feel dangerous to me also.
TMBill put return springs on his TM using clamps to hold the spring to the frame.
-
Trev, no-one is having a go at the event. It'll go off, it'll be fine on the day and it'll be the success it deserves to be.
But there have often been eligibility issues at the Nats, sadly because the rules are not always clear and also because people have all sorts of interpretations. So this thread was started with the intent of clarifying those issues. And it has done so. Now there's a sticking point. It's no-ones fault as such, no-one is trying to torpedo the event.
BUT. If someone rocked up with non-sprung pegs (and I'll bet there are plenty) AND they were knocked back, it just might make them unhappy.
So, it has to be clarified before the event. If the ruling is springs are needed, then people are forewarned and they can decide what to do from there. We can't now pretend this hasn't been raised given the questions have been asked of MAQ.
And if you want to see how this sort of thing has been raised and dealt with in the past, look at the thread about noise for the 2008 DT Nats. Lotsa of angst there but it was all OK on the day.
I can't imagine, if springs are needed, it will be all that hard to rig something up. Personally, I'd rock up without the springs and take my chances!
-
Is this a wind up or what .... ::) ::)
-
Look its easy , use a occy strap, when the scrutiner goes to check it , it will fly off smack em in the snout
loose his vision,coursing a diversion, allowing you to slip through with no probs :D
-
Very cunning. But it just might work...
-
regardless of the outcome here i think you are mad
if you dont have springs on pegs
and dont compere dirt track to mx ::)
your talking flat surface no ruts or berms etc
what about when your peg gets jammed with mud and has no
return spring, try riding that :o
my huskys dont have springs standard but i have fitted them
i like my ankles and legs
surely you can do a temporary return spring
without butchering original bike ???
its bad enough riding old bikes on those tiny footpegs
trying to keep your feet on them
without a spring makes it worse
unless you are riding around a footy oval ;D ;)
-
and to add, NONE of this shit went on prior to Tassi, Coffs or even WA, ....
Maybe this is because neither Coffs nor Tassie threatened to take the rule-book ultra seriously?
Maybe because both of those events basically said:
'We recognise that lots of bikes are technically not 100%, but if none of the other competitors are worried, so why should we be. We'll treat all protests with the respect that they deserve, but we recognise the people will be travelling a long way and they don't need the stress of worrying about whether their 1975 model clutch cover will prevent them from even getting a start - most competitors will not be vying for the win, so it is foolish for us to even think about worrying about enforcing every last thing.'
In contrast, this thread was started with:
its safe to say that eligilibty will be enforced this year. In other words if its not right it wont pass.
Not to pick on 211 - I think the intent of starting this thread was very good. However, it (and many subsequent posts) created the impression that scrutiny would be a particularly humourless process, and that lack of humour does not fit with the approach that 99% of us have to the sport - even when we're at the Nationals.
-
HOLESHOT
i understand your point just just classic and dirt track have the same gcrs and having a spring loaded swinging foot rest is dangerous on a dirttrack slider as we go around rh corners as well much lower than mx bikes.
-
Maybe this is because neither Coffs nor Tassie threatened to take the rule-book ultra seriously?
Maybe because both of those events basically said:
'We recognise that lots of bikes are technically not 100%, but if none of the other competitors are worried, so why should we be. We'll treat all protests with the respect that they deserve, but we recognise the people will be travelling a long way and they don't need the stress of worrying about whether their 1975 model clutch cover will prevent them from even getting a start - most competitors will not be vying for the win, so it is foolish for us to even think about worrying about enforcing every last thing.'
The powers that be are making these demands and there are more each year. You were at Coffs Nathan so you would have heard of guys being made to put some form of cover over the sprocket. Quite a few guys were caught out there. Isn't it just typical of moving into the future? Things are getting harder to get away with as safety due to insurance/ duty of care crap is going on. You now must have a cross bar pad also.That will catch a few out as well.That wasn't mentioned in past years but has filtered through from the moderns.
-
Fair points Brad, but the sprocket cover thing is clear, unlike the footpeg return springs.
The other big issue is how its presented to the punters.
For example, when I sawa amte get knocked back for an inadequate sprocket cover at Coffs, it was "Ah, you're going to have to do something about a sprocket covers because MA are insisting on it".
This is quite different to the "We will..." and "You must..." that's been happening in this thread.
Its the age-old thing: "Treat someone like a dickhead, and they'll lower themselves to meet your expectations".
Most of us have bikes that we've built to be 'within the spirit of the rules' - and have run our bikes at various levels without drama. When everyone is basically put on notice, then everyone is going to be defensive.
I'm leaving my pre-75 125 at home because the front hub on it is only 98% correct , and I don't want the drama - even though it hasn't even raised an eyebrow before now (inc Coffs Nats).
I wonder how many potential competitors are being swayed by the fear that this event will be a humourless affair?
-
I think we've all made our points on whether we think return springs are warranted or not. If not having return springs was the only thing preventing me from riding the Nats I'd be fitting them pretty quickly. I may think it's a trivial point but if the organisers feel that it's important enough to act upon well so be it.
As far as the sprocket cover ruling at Coffs Harbour, it wasn't a new thing introduced at that event, we've needed sprocket covers since the advent of open vintage championship meetings...19 years........lets move on eh?
-
Im just surprised that the drum being beaten now is MA wants it, crap they do, the first they heard was you asking, and then only a state rep for his take on it, i cant believe this thing even got a one page thread, the rule book dont say it, so all of this regardless of what spin you chaps put on it is for your own needs. nothing else.
This spring issue will no doubt be reversed, but the self returning issue could be your ownly issue
And Yer refer the Decibel thread , that was a dooozzie .......
-
Hey freaky,
you aren't stiiiiiring again are you
are you coming up or what
Tony C
-
guys
the ruling is
quote folding footpegs without springs are ok lindsay granger MQ
HAVE SMS ANS BACK UP
pre 65 guys you will have to have folding footpegs even thougt the bike didnt have them new i also discussed this with lindsay
thanks for all who replided
now on to something else
cheers
jim
-
Tony .....Who me ?
NAr after you didnt return my calls for a place to stay, or the offer from bert to lend me a bike. im going to sit it out. :-\
would only have been a goer if i could have flown up there, ridden and then flown back. Actually now you have all you Aussie championship medals maybe you should be cutting a class and lending me one of your sneeza's ? :D
But in referance to the posts, i get a little frustrated when simple things get accelerated into another ruling, not that i care what happens up there, but the last thing i want is this stuff to get legs, complicating things and before you know it its wormed its way into the MA rules somhow, like they always seem to POP up.
Personally you know my take on MA and the fact where pricing ourselves out of the sport. Scene here is dead this year, most guys would rather save the $1,000 in MA fees, track fees, transponders, entry fees etc etc and just go for a ride, you can ride all day on nice farm and country with your mates, but when you add what it costs to race from a little metal gate and you get all of 36 laps a day i can see where there are coming from.
I pulled out of road when it cost $10 a lap and thats from when you just divided into the entry fee not the other costs, the Dirt track series here is now $70 for 16 laps in 1 class at $4 a lap ( for 30 seconds) its not quite there but when you tip in all the other costs there is a break point. And its not too far away.
This will be the last year of the classic DT series here as most guys pulled out this year after some peanut decided that All bikes not just the rider had to have a hired transponder on it, essentially adding another $20 to your second bike, so many just brought out a 250cc ( killing the allpowers class), just riding one class the $ numbers just didnt stack up and they have pulled the pin. Previous rounds we had 10 ridders a class, this weekend im the only one entered. The same happend with the classic mx, however it is hanging on by one thread, a once a year event title - but unless you already have a senior license why would you pay out MA just to ride the one event.
MY gut feel is unless we can set up a demo or rally class to half the costs to ride/race around you wont see any pre 85 bikes ridden in SA in the next year, 2 years tops, the moderns are running with stuff all as well, and the Pee wee kids who we have heaps off are ending as, many dont want to go up to 85's they just want to ride, but the rules say at 10 yrs old regardless of skill level you cant ride ya pee wee on the track anymore.
I think we will see a big shift to "just riding events" and go head to head with MA as to why we need to pay there fees for social events, im guessing the same issues are seen in NSW going by the whats going wrong thread. This year our committe voted and we change 2 rounds to come and try days and closed to club fun days, we had 100 riders, compare that with 90 on a good race day, less volunteers required, no permits, transponders, comp head F#@KS, i think its the way to go and if im on the committe next year again ill be pushing for more rides and less racing, if the numbers come back then we can fire it up again.
How does this all relate to some simple springs ? well its just one more reason for the numbers needed to not come out and play, you can have a handfull of hard core racers spruking the vertues of rule interpretations, but you need more than a handful to put a race on, trust me we are at that paradigm shift here right now. YOU just need to Keep it as simple as possible so after you have sorted out all the other shit in your life, you can just put your bike in the car, fill up with juice and go for a ride, not troll pages of forums to see if you even going to get on the track, thats not cricket.
ID hate to see this all end up as a 2 state, aussie title held between Vic and Qld, maybe even turning into a state of origin. Ok WA im not forgetting you but you run a core group.
# note this is just my opinion :P
-
you just made the point exsactly walter, you, john Boag etc may if interested only ride 1 race event all year. and Nothing local. BE a long way to drive to find your sping just didnt cut it. ;)
-
Well no chance now, its interstate or nothing from here on in.
-
yep they went to give him mouth to mouth and when they went to close his nose, it came off, and he went down like a ballon.......
-
OK
This is the ruling from Peter Bell, level 4 scrutineer and Clerk of Course for the Nationals.
The rule will be "as long as pegs are folding and return on there own they will pass."
As for sidecars I don't think he cares.
Cheers
Noel
-
I can`t get over how much bullshit can go into one set of footpegs, have any of you ridden a motorcross bike with solid footpeg and had your foot bent backwards under the solid peg, well folding pegs are a must to have and common sense.
-
Have you people learnt nothing from the noise thread ? As a roadracer, I can tell you, and I'm sure I've mentioned it before in the decibels thread, the best thing in terms of items of contention with MA is to SHUT THE HELL UP, and it will pass quietly by. If you poke the bear, it will get angry. Stop stirring things up, turn up with a compliant bike, and get on with having a fun weekend with like-minded victims.... ::)
-
can`t get over how much bullshit can go into one set of footpegs, have any of you ridden a motorcross bike with solid footpeg and had your foot bent backwards under the solid peg, well folding pegs are a must to have and common sense.
Have another read Dave. This thread has had nothing at all to do with solid footpegs. It's about whether a returning peg needs a spring or not.
-
May be so Mark, as long as the pegs returns, ( its all bullshit,) The pegs should fold and return, reguardless wheather it has a spring or not. and if the footpeg does that its legel to be used.
-
What everyone is missing is that MA are in general catering for the modern seen (be it Road or dirt) and not the Vintage movement as all modern bikes come with self returning footpegs controlled by a spring (at least all the bikes I have seen).
I feel for anyone that may (I said may) have to make changes to bikes that have run for years and all of a sudden have to be modified, as in my view that is not intended meaning of the sport.
The one thing I can't cop is the personal attacks of people or states (in this case), look VMX is on the rise in Queensland as we run good meetings (both QVMX and Brisbane) because people get out there and support the sport not just sit at a computer throwing insults at people for nothing more than there view or take of a ruling.
Qvmx and the Sunshine Coast club are the organising clubs running the meeting and have no contol over the rules set by MA or the way they are applied (be that these rules are right or wrong), if you don't like a rule go to page 41 of your manual and apply to have them changed (or in this case relaxed or clarified to suit the older bikes) via your club delegate it can be that easy.
I believe Trev (Worms) has only done one thing wrong in this thread and that was to get involved. The forum is a good tool that sometimes can be used in the wrong way and in this case I believe this is the wrong way, read the rule book you have and if you are in doubt of your machine meeting the requirments then contact your local delegate for a ruling (in writing) and bring it with you.
Let's end this nonsense now please
Shane Wilson
For Wiltec Industries
A Major sponsor of the 2009 Vintage
Australian Motocross championships
-
Totally agree Shane. I left this post about 10 pages ago and came back today and it was like watching an episode of Days of our Lives, you can leave it for 10 years and then come back and miss nothing.
Doesn't change the fact that all Queenslanders are wankers, (except anyone involved in the running of the Nationals who could make my life difficult, then they're fine upstanding folk)
-
Well i have spring loaded foot pegs,but a flat slide carby on a evo bike.What the go?
-
Dr500, I have a spare round slide off a TT 500 if you need one, PM me or see me at Double Dirt.
Graham
Grahams Transport
Major sponser of my own back yard ;D
-
Doesn't change the fact that all Queenslanders are wankers,
One word Magoo "State of Origin" ;)
-
Well i have spring loaded foot pegs,but a flat slide carby on a evo bike.What the go?
It was mentioned several pages ago that flatslides for EVO are now allowed so you should be right
-
YIPEEEE I HAVE A DR 500 with a flat slide on her was going to put one of my TT500 carbs on her for the nats ,but will take it just in case :o
-
yeah thats a wise move to take a round slide just incase, you never know what might happen ;)
-
Doesn't change the fact that all Queenslanders are wankers
Bloody hell Magoo. Have you learnt nothing, mate ? Of course they're not, plus they've jagged CD6 and the vmx nats, that's not for nothing, mate. Why not just chill out and get stuck in ? Don't you realise.... ::) wherever the nats are each year, we have to get in and support them !! >:(
-
Hey GD, ah, it's a joke mate. A joke. Some of my best friends are Queenslanders. Joke mate, sheesh.
-
Ah... rodger that, mate. Decoyed in like a beauty. Got me... ::).. best wishes to all at the nats, regards GD ;)