OzVMX Forum
Clubroom => Competition => Topic started by: TT on October 25, 2010, 09:17:19 am
-
I'm back on my "period correct" soapbox again............ ::)
I had a bloke in my shed over the weekend who's involved in motorsport but not vintage motocross. He took one look at my Husky and laughed like buggery. :-\ His comment was along the lines of "Surely all that alloy stuff isn't legal for Pre 75?"
Which, of course, got me thinking. I've always maintained that we've lost our way a little bit with the 'vintage' part of vintage motocross, yet here I was with a bike with billet alloy bit dripping off it, trick twin clicker suspension, PD valves, fat bars, fat pegs, a huge alloy swingarm and up until last week, a big fat pipe.
Firstly, was this stuff available in 1974 and if not, why is it allowed in the sport today?
-
Yep.
(http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr37/Tony_T12/Bikesforsale028Web-1.jpg)
-
Hope this helps a bit Tony T.
I suppose its been allowed,and as long as its eligibility is correct, you can hang what ever shine you like off it.
Having the available money to spend is alway helpful. 8)
But in short I think its too much bling.
Farleigh Castle pics where a prime example ;) ;D
Once its dirty you wont see it anyway ;D
Heres a vintage thread. :)
http://ozvmx.com/community/index.php?topic=255.0
Quote:DJracing;Bling has always been around; Fox airshox, Fox forx, DG pipes, Oakley grips, Webco heads and all manner of different things to empty the back pocket.
-
I suppose its been allowed,and as long as its eligibility is correct, you can hang what ever shine you like off it.
That's exactly my question, is it's eligibilty strictly correct? Was this stuff available in 1974?
It might sound strange that I'm challenging my own bike, but the more I look at it, the less I feel that it is in the 'Spirit of Classic Motocross'.
Quote:DJracing;Bling has always been around; Fox airshox, Fox forx, DG pipes, Oakley grips, Webco heads and all manner of different things to empty the back pocket.
Absolutely true, but in the era. Not adding stuff that was deisgned and made in 2010 to a bike that was designed and made in 1974.
I'm not challenging the rules at all, just trying to be clear on which of my billet/aftermarket parts specifically were available in 1974.
-
I Like the BIG FAT PIPE 8)
-
This is one of my pet subjects ::). Your bike looks pretty right going by the one small photo you posted Tony. It looks like a really nice bike in fact. I wouldn't worry about the fat pegs, they're one modern accessory that should be encouraged for safety sake. I do however have a thing about fat bars on vintage bikes. I think they look out of place on a vintage bike, especially a pre '75 model. They were fitted to my B&S TM400 when it arrived from the USA and removing them was the very first thing I did to the bike. The swingarm appears to be a replica of a Thor period item and is kosher for the period. My personal take on the shock thing is that external adjusters shouldn't be allowed in pre '75 but I'm not a Nazi about it. I don't have any problem with internal modernisation of suspension or ignitions either as they don't detract from the period look of the bike and help in making the bikes easier to live with. All up though, nice Husky Tony.
-
Yeah i am with Firko, nice bike, fat bars, Scott steering dampeners and such like were not available and look wrong, the swingarm I am not sure about, I thought the deep alloy FMF/Thor arms were post 75 and the round section PDI etc are pre 75.
I mean I guess the point of building a race bike is to have a racing advantage so whatever you can get away with within the rules should be fair play. Aluminium was available pre 75 so no reason why in 1974 someone could not have tricked their bike with your goodies so I think it is cool the way it is.
Vintage road racing is no different and I would imagine car racing given my limited exposure, its racing everyone will look for an edge.
Yep.
(http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr37/Tony_T12/Bikesforsale028Web-1.jpg)
-
That's exactly my question, is it's eligibilty strictly correct? Was this stuff available in 1974?
can you be more specific and say the exact brand name of the components in question. For example if they were aftermarket Webco footpegs then they were around at sometime in the 70's.
-
:D peer pressure mate..don't let it sway you Tony ;) if you like the bike how it is then keep it that way. You can always bolt the correct bits back on later. Fortunately I don't race so I build my bikes how I like and within my own 'personal' guidelines of what's acceptable and what's not. It's all material, if it makes you happy then keep it that way 8) looks very nice btw..congrats
-
if you like the bike how it is then keep it that way.
To be completely honest, I like the way it looks, but I probably like things to look like they came from the period more.
The 2 things that bothered me most were the pipe and the fat bars. The pipe's already gone in favour of one that follows the original, the bars will go shortly and so will the massive billet rear brake pedal.
The bike is an absolute weapon and a credit to the builder, it's just not quite "me" yet.
I was worried about the swingarm and I've been trawling through old editions of Dirt Bike to find evidence, but haven't found anything as yet. Good to hear it is a replica of a period item. ;D
The triple clamps can stay too. Only because they're not so obvious. ;)
Thanks for all the input fellas. The general consensus seems to be in line with my thoughts.
-
OK, my take is (as a scrutineer in the past) that if you can't show me period evidence (mag sales ads with a pic - not a pic of an unobtainium works bike with similar stuff) of those aftermarket items you can't run them. We intended VMX to be glorifying old clunkers with their faults as a limiting factor (eg: 4" rear, 7" front travel, wimpy triple clamps, flexy swing arms, bendy forks, anaemic power etc etc) but then all the rule benders got creative in their search for the upper hand at the races.
This is why I've gone to Vinduro. Tony, it's a nice bike but it sure ain't period correct.
-
This is why I've gone to Vinduro…
Don't worry Drakie, the rules will catch up to you there as well. Oh, hold on there ain't no rules!!!!
-
I know it would have been discussed to death previously but I must have missed it.
The 7"/4" travel rule in Pre75 and 9"/9" travel rule in Pre78, why do they exist? I would have thought that whatever was the travel as manufactured should be acceptable. After all that was the actual competition at that time.
The '74.5 Maico among others had more than 4" travel in the rear which was an advantage but it was not the bike that won everything in that year as it had other weaknesses or short comings. The same applies to the Husky, Maico and Montesa of '77 they had more than 9" travel both front and back, again they did not win everything in sight that year.
All bikes have advantages and disadvantages these bikes had this advantage but obviously had other disadvantages.
Please don't now vilify or banish me for daring to ask this question like I have seen others branded a witch or worse for questioning the 'Deity' like rule book.
-
I'm not challenging the rules at all, just trying to be clear on which of my billet/aftermarket parts specifically were available in 1974.
What came out of the box back in 74 was probably what you got-simple era gear ;D 8)
Another question is how far after did the aftermarket parts come out..??
Now days its August-October and the 2011 gear is out..near on 6 months before the new year cracks,was it the same back in the day ??
cheers
something else to throw in the mix Ben rode a new 350 ktm at Manji on the weekend and it was three years in the making are we advanced or behind in techology ??
-
montynut, It basically comes back to the concept that its all about the "short travel era", not specifically 31st of December 1974.
For whatever reasons, it became 'pre-75', which has since revealed a few weaknesses - including the GP Maicos and YZ-Bs. Personally, I reckon that those bikes should never have been allowed in Pre-75 as they are clearly the first bikes of the new long(er) travel era regardless of their date of release.
The same thing applies for pre-78, but even more clearly. The Pre-78 class is specifically about the bikes that had more than 7/4", but less than the ~12" that bikes subsequently settled on - and yet a significant number of 1977 bikes simply don't meet that criteria.
The regs as they stand are a mis-mash of two idealogies - the one that says "technology is what really matters, and the one that says "the year of manufacture matters" - without actually satisfying either.
IMHO, if we could go back in time, we'd be far better served by rules that followed either idealogy. But I'm equally sure that the cost of ditching the current system and adopting either idealogy now would far outweigh the gains...
-
OK, my take is (as a scrutineer in the past) that if you can't show me period evidence (mag sales ads with a pic - not a pic of an unobtainium works bike with similar stuff) of those aftermarket items you can't run them. We intended VMX to be glorifying old clunkers with their faults as a limiting factor (eg: 4" rear, 7" front travel, wimpy triple clamps, flexy swing arms, bendy forks, anaemic power etc etc) but then all the rule benders got creative in their search for the upper hand at the races.
This is why I've gone to Vinduro. Tony, it's a nice bike but it sure ain't period correct.
I still maintain that if reproductions of major components is allowed, then reproductions/replicas of works components must also be allowed.
If it so happens that the following year's production part is a replica of last year's works part, then it is actually VERY hard to mount a defensible argument prohibiting it.
NB: I don't want to do this, nor do I think that it would be good for the sport. But as the rules are written, only peer pressure stops it from being a common occurance.
-
OK, my take is (as a scrutineer in the past) that if you can't show me period evidence (mag sales ads with a pic - not a pic of an unobtainium works bike with similar stuff) of those aftermarket items you can't run them.
Good reason not to go to the hassle of turning up at competition event where they have gone nuts on scrutineering.
I am with Nathan, if it was available at the time whether it is off a works bike or whatever. If it existed in the world before 1975 then why not. Plus common sense should prevail.... for example is an alloy brake pedal really going to knock seconds off a lap time.
-
Not if said alloy brake pedal is painted black-that's for sure, but if you leave it natural alloy it will every time-or so I've been told.
-
For whatever reasons,
I suppose the same is occuring for the pre90 as we speak/write .
It was who and what clubs were around back in the begining of Classic Motocross in the structure/guidelines/construction of the gcr's and who was putting what into the rule book.
We can only ask and question our past vintage ethusisits of how this was/has come about.
Saying this, pre90 are the evolution of rule makers..go get em Rex ;D
cheers
-
I suppose the same is occuring for the pre90 as we speak/write .
I think that Pre-90 (and Pre-85) are happy to use age cut-off to gather bikes of an 'era' together.
Those classes don't seek to exclude any particular technology, that isn't automatically excluded by the age cut-off.
-
I suppose the same is occuring for the pre90 as we speak/write .
I think that Pre-90 (and Pre-85) are happy to use age cut-off to gather bikes of an 'era' together.
Those classes don't seek to exclude any particular technology, that isn't automatically excluded by the age cut-off.
Nathan ,I hope they are still satisfied in another 20 years for what their foundation rules are laid down for here and now.There just aint pleasing some folks ;D
cheers
ps Nice bike Tony 8)
-
I think that Pre-90 (and Pre-85) are happy to use age cut-off to gather bikes of an 'era' together.
Those classes don't seek to exclude any particular technology, that isn't automatically excluded by the age cut-off.
[/quote]
I think also the pre 85 and 90 are not so open to issues of technology advantage.... pre 85 you start to get forks and suspension that works and finally pre 85 discs start coming along. Technically there wasn't as bigger leap between the after market and show room floor.
Probably due to the great work put in by the AMA to kill off works bikes.
-
What is people's view of "trick twin clicker suspension"?
I would have thought that only if its internally adjusted that it'd be ok for pre75.
Can't remember seeing any eternally adjusted compression or rebound pre75 shocks at the time.
-
Im pretty sure Arnaco had external damping adjustment but pre 75 Firko????? I know there is one old brand like that which did have it, ive seen them on ebay.
Piggybacks are not allowed in pre 75 (probably except for Thermal Flows) so shocks with external damping knobs shouldnt be allowed in pre 75 either unless you can show proof of your shocks existance pre 75. I have not seen many people with modern shocks with external adjusters on pre 75 bikes anyway so i dont think its too much of a concern. EVO is where everyone goes crazy with modern shocks.
-
I think that a number of American vintage part manufacturers are distorting history and therefore the appearance of pre '75 bikes by manufacturing and selling parts that have no resemblance of anything available back in the era. I don't recall seeing too many alloy swingarms prior to 1975 with the exception of Boyd and Stellings or perhaps Thor, the only billet triple clamps I know were made were the ProFab items shown below. All of those fancy billet backing plates, brake levers, torque rods and such stuff is pure bling that has no relevance to what was used circa 1974. In 1975 the trickest shocks you could buy were Arnacos or alloy Konis and there were no external clickers or any sort of adjustment with the exception of Arnacos having external dampening adjustment that really didn't make any difference. Fat bars are just plain wrong on pre '90 bikes let alonr pre '75.
I blame the soft cocks at the AHRMA who didn't nip this stuff in the bud when it first started to trickle onto the market. By turning a blind eye to it they're legitimising the stuff by default. The guys here see the stuff for sale on eBay or on the American supplier sites and assume the stuffs kosher by our rules as well. If some of this stuff isn't nipped in the bud pretty quickly our bikes are going to lose their period identity.
The only legal billet triple clamps to my knowledge ProFab, circa 1973-74
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-8/1062154/profab%20clamps.jpg)
-
Im pretty sure Arnaco had external damping adjustment but pre 75 Firko?
Leith, I've got four sets of Arnacos and they're all date stamped. Two@1972 and the others 1974.
They have external dampening adjustment and adjustable preload. They were years ahead of their time being true cartridge shocks before the others caught on. They're not perfect but they were the best you could get back then and worked well until the seals blew out. I've got a set on my Cheney that have had later style seals and some minor improvements done in attempt to prevent them leaking like buggery, their Achilles heel. I could have bought a set of Ohlins or trick YSS for what these will probably cost me by the time I've got them working right but I want to keep the bike period correct and prove that Arnaco was on the right course.
-
Firko - I am really reluctant to ask this because really some of the things mentioned don't have an impact on going faster or slower for the majority of us but as far as billet goes ie triple clamps - is there a problem with me making my own set of billet clamps now as I could of done in the day.
Don't get me wrong - I am really interested in the thread - don't have a strong stance on it (other than thinking period is the best way to keep the era clean) but wonder if some people take the concept too far down the line i.e whats wrong with a bling brake torque arm etc?
Please be gentle?
-
Everyones got an opinion on this Ross, I'm only stating mine ;D.
My objection to billet triple clamps and swingarms is that for every one of these little mods you do to your bike, it moves just that little further away from the era it's supposed to represent. I have no problem with you making your own triple clamps at all...as long as they replicate something that was made in the day. Theoretically you could make a set of 45mm forks if you had the right skills but would that be kosher?
My take on VMX is to imagine that the observer has hopped into the DeLorean, switched on the Flux Capacitor and gone back to 1974 (or insert era of choice). I feel that the observer deserves to see bikes that truly represent that era not bikes misrepresenting how it really was back them. Just my 2c worth.
-
but wonder if some people take the concept too far down the line i.e whats wrong with a bling brake torque arm etc?
Please be gentle?
hmmm alloy brake lever and torque arm were period RH250 components so there should be no issue there as they were around in the day. As were titanium bolts and axles.
Technically you can run whatever shocks you want as for good reason they are considered consumable .... like they were in the day. One way is to limit to designs that were available from each manufacturer, I mean Ohlins do their old style shocks still.
But you are right in that period bling only, so no 43mm forks on your pre 80 bike unless they are Fox.
-
Firko, I have a pickle at the moment that you may be able to help with then. I am looking to buy new forks for my '76 RT15a Wasp. As it runs in pre'85 class I am tempted to buy and fit a later and longer travel front end but then it loses it's originality. However to fit the later model stuff makes good racing sense and it would still be "era specific" What to do?
-
hmmm alloy brake lever and torque arm were period RH250 components so there should be no issue there as they were around in the day. As were titanium bolts and axles.
Maico had them too...the solution is easy in that case, use Maico or RH Suzuki brake pedals and torque arms.
I don't have much of a problem with consumables like shocks though I would prefer to see a rule introduced making external adjustment illegal (a'la' AHRMA). However, as I said in an earlier post I don't want to be too anal about it as I understand that most period shocks are rooted beyond rebuilding.
I have to disagree on one small thing though Marc, Ohlins didn't make shocks during the pre '75 period. I don't believe they were available to the public until around '78. Genady Moisseev was the first racer to win a title with them in 1977 I believe. Works Performance shocks are fine as they were around in 1973 and are based around an earlier Charlie Curnutt design anyway.
I'm not so much against the technology of modern style adjustable shocks as I am about their looks. If a manufacturer could "disguise" new technology inside old school shock bodies I thing we could maintain the period appearance of old bikes, Win/win.
Firko, I have a pickle at the moment that you may be able to help with then. I am looking to buy new forks for my '76 RT15a Wasp. As it runs in pre'85 class I am tempted to buy and fit a later and longer travel front end but then it loses it's originality. However to fit the later model stuff makes good racing sense and it would still be "era specific" What to do?
Being from Sydney where such things have never really existed, I have no knowledge whatsoever
on sidecars. They all look the same to me. (I'm not taking the piss either, I'd never seen a motocross sidecar race until they were added to the vintage program in the late 90's)
-
So perfecty legit, Works Performance shocks, PDI arm, and it now has Webco head and YZ lookee like forks. I think there is a factor of, 'knowing what we know now', that allows for decent improvement without building a bike that is outside the period.
I think total build of the MX250 including the bike is less than 2 grand and it will get the job done.
(http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg71/marcFX_photo/HL500/IMG_3310.jpg)
-
By turning a blind eye to it they're legitimising the stuff by default. The guys here see the stuff for sale on eBay or on the American supplier sites and assume the stuffs kosher by our rules as well. If some of this stuff isn't nipped in the bud pretty quickly our bikes are going to lose their period identity.
here here.
-
Excellent discussion, folks.
Especiialy cos it's going in the direction I hoped it would. ;)
So, anyone want to buy some trick, billett Husky parts? :D
-
I've got four sets of Arnacos and they're all date stamped. Two@1972 and the others 1974.
They have external dampening adjustment and adjustable preload.
I thought so. Konis you can adjust the damping by rotating the shaft so that could be considered external adjustment too.
To me its all about trying re-create the period as much as possible and not about lap times. If you dont care about period looks and have fat bars, heaps of billet stuff, fat modern pegs, fancy shocks, fat pipes etc etc then whats the point? you may aswell ride a modern bike if you dont really care about period looks as your not really racing anything that was around back then. It just seems silly to me.
I'm not so much against the technology of modern style adjustable shocks as I am about their looks. If a manufacturer could "disguise" new technology inside old school shock bodies I think we could maintain the period appearance of old bikes, Win/win.
Agree 100%
-
American Alloy bling ;) ;D
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/MX-Racing-Number-Plates-Motocross-alloy-AHRMA-Vintage-/260638695061?pt=Motorcycles_Parts_Accessories&hash=item3caf46de95
-
In the right era, I don't see that as bling at all.
In fact for earlier stuff, I reckon it's probably more period correct than plastic. :)
-
In the right era, I don't see that as bling at all.
In fact for earlier stuff, I reckon it's probably more period correct than plastic. :)
I was taken the piss on USA-thats what the winks for and an extra pair of sunnies to cover the shine 8) 8) ;)
cheers
-
Unlike probably most of us and coming from a scrutineers point of view I thought Drakie pretty well nailed it in his post on this subject on page one. Pretty much everthing there after is conjecture and opinion (and we're all entitled to it). Tony the Husky look's spoof blow and I would love to see it out and about irrespective.
-
Thanks Col,
Yep, it will be out and about in the new year. That's for sure.
I've struggled against my desire to return it closer to stock as it was such a magnificent race bike from a performance perspective. But I really do prefer to focus on the 'vintage' part of vintage motocross and it will be returned to a more period correct configuration.
The pipe's already gone and I've just bought an original brake pedal and triple clamps. ;D
Still undecided on the swingarm. :-\
-
I thought Drakie and I were on the same page Col..Don't know how you got him right and us just using conjecture and opinion ??? I also base my opinions on my experience as National level a scrutineer as well as being the person, along with Drakie, who developed the rulebook we base our opinions on twenty years ago. That "conjecture and opinion" was developed over the last twenty five years. ::)
Tony....I'm reasonably confidant that if the swingarm is a replica of a Thor swingarm it may well be legal. I'll look through my magazines to see if I can find any pre '75 precedence. Their weren't many aluminium swingarms commercially available prior to 1975. I know Thor made a pre '75 Maico swingarm and one for MX/YZ Yamaha's but I'm not sure on Huskys. I have a sneaking suspicion that Pro Circuit marketed them under their name but I'll have to research it.
Please don't take my anti bling rant as anything personal mate, I think you understand where I'm coming from.
-
The pipe's already gone and I've just bought an original brake pedal and triple clamps. ;D
Still undecided on the swingarm. :-\
I think you should keep the swingarm and sell me the bike ;D
I have the older style cast up PDI arms on my pre 75. I think they look the part.
-
Here's my old Maico showing its Boyd and Stellings (later renamed PDI) swingarm. Walt Boyd first sold these in 1969 as part of his original Boyd and Stellings frame kits. Before someone mentions it, the brake stay is a genuine period Wheelsmith item that's been on the bike since about 1973. Note also 1973 Maico billet brake pedal." Billet" stainless steel sprocket cover has been on there for about thirty years as well. I made it as a foreign order at work one day. ;D
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-8/1062154/camden11.jpg)
-
what about the "gripper" seatcover?? ;)
-
I've trawled every copy of Dirt Bike from 1974 and I haven't seen any reference to the THOR swingarm for the Husky. There were a few adverts for lengthening the stock swingarm, but nothing in aluminium. Has anyone else got any information to support it's existance prior to December 1974?
Still wondering how this bike has been getting through scrutineering......... :D
-
Just got confirmation from Rick Sieman that THOR didn't make swingarms until later, so even if it is an exact copy, it's definitely not Pre 75 legal.
-
The Maico and the bike behind it will need bling bling gold chains to even run.
To my eye I can't see how a little 20mm thick knurled knob on the bottom of a shock destroys the look of a pre-75 bike? Just another case for log books, so easy and simple.
-
Still wondering how this bike has been getting through scrutineering......... :D
I think he might have been onto something by keeping quiet and not advertising the fact that it wasn't legal on OzVMX?
Just an idea… :D
-
I think he might have been onto something by keeping quiet and not advertising the fact that it wasn't legal on OzVMX?
Just an idea… :D
I know it might sound dumb that I'm going out of my way to prove that my bike's not legal, but I'd just like to see the sport remain as a true reflection of how racing was in any given era instead of modern bikes with 7/4 travel. ;)
Besides I'll cop much less abuse by using my own bike as an example rather than someone elses......... I hope......... :-\
-
Just got confirmation from Rick Sieman that THOR didn't make swingarms until later, so even if it is an exact copy, it's definitely not Pre 75 legal.
That was my first impression too, it looks too futuristic to me but i was waiting to see if anyone with more knowlege on them spoke up.
-
Firko, I was not directing my comment at you or anyone else in particular. Among other things Tony asked a question as to eligibility and the fact that Drakie in his capacity as a scrutineer (past or present) was straight up in his response is what I liked. Plain and simple and no one's left in any doubt. As I have seen before the question/s of eligibility on this forum can seem to drag on forever without ever seeming to reach a conclusion. If you interprated my response that you and Drakie were not on the same page that was not my intention. I just reckon that on any question re eligibility nine times out of ten we will not find the answer in opinions and in fact are all better served by someone in the capacity of say Drakie or yourself putting the blokes like me and a few other like minded souls out of our misery early in the game.
-
Firko - I have read but not "listened" previously to the legal/not legal comments regards swingarms becasue basically with my YZB it was basically OEM or nothing - and I realise it is your opinion - but from what people are saying then would a "now made" Karl Landrus swingarm copy not be acceptable for my YZB - alloy or whatever? If you were purist I mean.
ta
Rossco
-
This is all very interesting stuff. I for one try my best to keep my pre75 within the rules as I'm sure most of us do. But is there anything wrong with adding performance accessories (as opposed to bling) to our period race bikes?
Take my 250 Elsinore for example. Profab swingarm and pipe. Works performance shocks. GEM reed block. YZF yamaha footpegs. Akront rims. GP seat. Renthal bars.
The alloy swingarm was available for the Elsinores in 1974 to get the things to turn without having to be sideways everywhere. DG also made Alloy swingarms for the Honda's. This being the case, why is it not kosher to have an alloy swingarm on another brand of bike, taking aside that it is obviously made after December 1974? In the case of Tony's Husky, is it any different to someone lengthening the stock swingarm which was a popular mod in the day?
Pipes have always been tinkered with, from day one. Every Tom, Dick and Harry had a better way to do things than the factories.
The GEM reedblock was made in 1974 in an effort to make the Elsinore more rideable and stop the power from being like a light switch. To get the reeds to work as they should, Ive had to drill my own pilot jets as any standard pilot jet was not big enough to do the job.
The footpegs are there for my own safety, nothing else. My knee still gives me grief from a stock footpeg snapping off my B50!
The Works Performance shocks are there because the stockers aren't worth a pile of poo, nor where they in the day. After my trip to Connondale and WA and seeing a few bikes with external rebound and compression clickers, I questioned one of the commisioners about the eligibility of them as I spent some decent coin on staying true to 1974 but getting what I thought was the best the rules allowed. Once I explained to him the pro's of having adjustable shocks, he thought about it and got back to me with a "yes, they will be allowed in the interest of being kinder to our bikes and bodies, considering some of the bigger than Ben Hur braking bumps we have to ride through at times like the Titles. So, as far as I am told by a commisioner, adjustable shocks are allowed and will be incorporated into the rule book.
Same deal with triple clamps. The same commisioner said that as long as the new clamps has the same offset as the original, there is absolutely no reason why we can't use billet clamps.
In my opinion, running alloy handlebars is a must do mod to a race bike. The standard type steel bars bend far too easily for someone like myself who drops the bike every so often. However, I was lucky enough to find a set of solid alloy bars with the vintage bend for my B50. Fatbars look ridiculous on an old bike and I wouldn't use them for that reason alone. It could also be argued that the Fatbar does offer a performance gain simply by way of the flex they provide, thus reducing fatigue. And they definitely were not around in 1974.
None of this makes me any faster by the way, but I do feel much better on my bike and it has passed scrutineering with help from Firko. Seems not too many scrutineers know of the GEM reedblock. I have all the standard parts to put back on the Elsinore when I have finished racing it but if it were to be the case that I had to race it as it came off the showroom floor, well, it would become another bike that wouldn't see the race track again.
By the way, I am going to sell the Elsi so if anyone wants a real fast CR that is %100 race legal, send me a message. The british bikes have me by the gonnads so Im letting the Elsinore go to fund my B44 project. Seems I can't have 1 of everything...
-
Probably very well said and about what I would imagine the rules should be. Fatty bars are just too over the top but fat footpegs are likely to be ok as no one can see them from the sidelines, and if it was avaiable in '74 just after the bike was made-then go for it.
-
But is there anything wrong with adding performance accessories (as opposed to bling) to our period race bikes?
In my opinion, there's no problem at all in adding performance accessories, as long as they were available within the period of the bike you race. e.g. prior to December 31 1974.
But I guess it comes down to whether you are into vintage racing to enjoy the bikes of the era or whether winning races is more important to you. And let's face it, most of us are past our prime and it's certainly easier to win a National title in vinatge racing than in moderns. :D
I personally love the vintage movement because you get to feel like you're a part of motorcycling like it was 35 years ago. But when bikes are presented with fat pipes, fat bars, the riders wearing flouro modern riding gear, it really takes away from the whole experience. For me, that is.
There's obviously those that feel that getting any little performance advantage is more important than all that stuff. Not saying that's right or wrong, just not what I want to see vintage motocross become.
I also reckon that most blokes work benefit far more from training and practice than they would from a fat pipe anyway. :D
If the general concensus turns out to be that we want all the modern stuff on vintage bikes, then so be it.
I just prefer to see vintage racing remain just that: vintage. :)
-
But is there anything wrong with adding performance accessories (as opposed to bling) to our period race bikes?
In my opinion, there's no problem at all in adding performance accessories, as long as they were available within the period of the bike you race. e.g. prior to December 31 1974
There's obviously those that feel that getting any little performance advantage is more important than all that stuff. Not saying that's right or wrong, just not what I want to see vintage motocross become.
I also reckon that most blokes work benefit far more from training and practice than they would from a fat pipe anyway. :D
I agree whole heartedly Tony. As I said, all the go fast gear isn't going to make me any faster....Training and practise definitely would. I do walk the dogs each day :D
In saying that, I do like to see bikes with all the Go Fast gear on them that was available in the day as we don't get to see much of it in Oz. Apart from anything else, it gives the punters something different to look at