Ohlins upside down forks

[KTM47]

If you bothered to read the whole thread you would know that the old Ohlin USD forks on the works bikes were 43 mm and the later ones made in 1998 are 46 mm.  So work the rest out for yourself.

[Nathan S]

If you bothered to read the whole thread you would know that the old Ohlin USD forks on the works bikes were 43 mm and the later ones made in 1998 are 46 mm.  So work the rest out for yourself.

[JohnnyO]

So if a part was on a works bike but you couldn't buy it in the day it's now legal?
That opens up a can of worms and also makes upside down Ohlins forks ok for pre 90.

If the part existed in the era, it is acceptable. It's "Pre-90", not "Pre-90 production racing".

If the later production Ohlins USDs are the same as the older works parts, then they qualify as a replica part. Otherwise, they are obviously not Pre-90 legal.

The class structures and rules were designed around the bikes we ride which are Production bikes not unobtainable to the general public works bikes.
If you're going to come up with that crap then the whole set of rules needs to be rewritten as nothing on works bikes is the same spec as the bikes we ride. And I'm talking all era's...

[evo550]

Cool that's how I see it but a few people on here seem to think if it existed on a works bike then it's ok to use in that era..

All I'm asking is show me the rule that excludes works or non commercially available components of that particular era...

No that's not the way it works.  Show us the rule that says you can use works etc parts.

Anyway this thread is about Ohlin USD forks.

16.15.11.1 might do it.a machine is a machine, a component is a component, irrespective of whether it's factory, aftermarket or production, the determining factor of that rule is the machine or components date of manufacture.

So if a part was on a works bike but you couldn't buy it in the day it's now legal?
That opens up a can of worms and also makes upside down Ohlins forks ok for pre 90.

If the part existed in the era, it is acceptable. It's "Pre-90", not "Pre-90 production racing".

If the later production Ohlins USDs are the same as the older works parts, then they qualify as a replica part. Otherwise, they are obviously not Pre-90 legal.

The class structures and rules were designed around the bikes we ride which are Production bikes not unobtainable to the general public works bikes.
If you're going to come up with that crap then the whole set of rules needs to be rewritten as nothing on works bikes is the same spec as the bikes we ride. And I'm talking all era's...

John, why is it your happy to accept a twin shock CR 480 in the evo class even though it wasn't available to the general public, but you would exclude someone on a commercial available, era specific bike fitted with a single non available part.

[JohnnyO]

Brendan I accept whatever the rules allow and they are bikes built from what you and I can buy.
Works bikes never entered the equation when the rules were set out and only confuses the issue as they had completely different specifications, suspension travel, etc for the era.

[evo550]

Fair enough, That's your view. But I don't see anywhere that says components used must have been available to the public at that time.
Personally I would rather see a '74 Cr getting around with works swingarm and suspension of that era, than one with a 2014 KLP swingarm, ohlins shock and gold valve thingy's in the forks...

[JohnnyO]

So would I but at the moment the rules don't cater for that.
If there is a doubtful part on your bike you have to prove that it was available back in the day just like the 77 Suzuki swingarm issue..

[KTM47]

16.15.11.1 might do it.a machine is a machine, a component is a component, irrespective of whether it's factory, aftermarket or production, the determining factor of that rule is the machine or components date of manufacture.
[/quote]

You left some of that rule out.

16.15.11.  Acceptable machines and components:  Pre 78 Solo
16.15.11.1  Acceptable for Pre 78 classes
                  a)  Machines and components that are limited to 1975, 1976 1977 models alone.

The key here is the word model.  This refers to a production bike.  So it should be production components only.  As for using woks parts, you would have to prove they are from the year.  Good luck getting the manufacturer to give you that proof.  Also works bike usually changed during the season anyway.

Also where does it say a CR480 with twin shocks is legal?

[JohnnyO]

And for the record Brenden I've never said a CR480 engined twin shock is legal, I only went in to bat for those using 82/83 forks in Evo..

[evo550]

16.15.11.1 might do it.a machine is a machine, a component is a component, irrespective of whether it's factory, aftermarket or production, the determining factor of that rule is the machine or components date of manufacture.

You left some of that rule out.

16.15.11.  Acceptable machines and components:  Pre 78 Solo
16.15.11.1  Acceptable for Pre 78 classes
                  a)  Machines and components that are limited to 1975, 1976 1977 models alone.

The key here is the word model.  This refers to a production bike.  So it should be production components only.  As for using woks parts, you would have to prove they are from the year.  Good luck getting the manufacturer to give you that proof.  Also works bike usually changed during the season anyway.

Also where does it say a CR480 with twin shocks is legal?
[/quote]


Works bikes are definable into year designations, especially in the pre '85/90 eras when factories started using production bikes as platforms for their factory bikes. A lot of these parts are floating around on the internet, mainly HRC bits.
Jeff Wards old factory Kawasaki's recently sold in the U.S. they could be defined into year of manufacture/use.
The reality of it is that it will probably never happen, but if someone where to push Jeff Wards 1984 title winning 125 up to the line at Coles creek in the pre '85 125 class and it consisted of parts built in or before 1985 , would they be breaking the rules? I don't think so.

The twin shock CR 480 comment stems from the Evo discussion where it was determined that if a CR 450/480/500 motor could be fitted to a CR 250 chassis without mods then it was deemed legal in the EVO class.

[evo550]

And for the record Brenden I've never said a CR480 engined twin shock is legal, I only went in to bat for those using 82/83 forks in Evo..

Yeah my bad, sorry, jumped the gun a bit there...

[KTM47]

The twin shock CR 480 comment stems from the Evo discussion where it was determined that if a CR 450/480/500 motor could be fitted to a CR 250 chassis without mods then it was deemed legal in the EVO class.

So it has been determined you can put a 480 in a 250 frame has it.  Show me where that is written in the GCRs or has been approved by MA.

What is written (posted) on this forum is opinion only.

[Nathan S]

Works bikes never entered the equation when the rules were set out and only confuses the issue as they had completely different specifications, suspension travel, etc for the era.

Not correct at all.

The rules have always catered for works bikes and components. Alan Tomkins had a SR400/450 at some of the very first VMX meetings in this country. Not to mention the works bikes/components that were raced in Australia in the day.

Add in the impossibility of determining the cut-off between "works" and "production", and there's another good reason why works bikes/components aren't outlawed.

If you can prove that it existed in the day, and the rules don't otherwise specifically prohibit it, then it is allowed.
It really is that simple.

[JohnnyO]

Works bikes never entered the equation when the rules were set out and only confuses the issue as they had completely different specifications, suspension travel, etc for the era.

Not correct at all.

The rules have always catered for works bikes and components. Alan Tomkins had a SR400/450 at some of the very first VMX meetings in this country. Not to mention the works bikes/components that were raced in Australia in the day.

Add in the impossibility of determining the cut-off between "works" and "production", and there's another good reason why works bikes/components aren't outlawed.

If you can prove that it existed in the day, and the rules don't otherwise specifically prohibit it, then it is allowed.
It really is that simple.

What are you smoking today?

[Nathan S]

If the rules sought to prohibit works bikes, then the rules would seek to prohibit works bikes.

So rather than throwing rocks, show me where the rules disagree with me.

The problem you have (and keep having), is that you're working off what you think/assume the rules are about, and not what the rules actually say.