OzVMX Forum
Clubroom => General Discussion => Topic started by: Slakewell on July 08, 2012, 09:23:59 am
-
After the fine success of the first split Nats one thing that was highlighted to me was the Pre 78 suspension rules. Internet forums are not the place to change rules but to canvas suggestions. I will write a submission to MA with proposed changes I'm not expecting anyone else to do this for me.
I believe that bikes with standard factory suspension should not have to modify them or shorten travel to comply and bikes with mods available in 77 should be allowed. My years have taught me that wild suspension mods unbalance the bike to the point that it slows it down.
Look at the fastest lap times at this years Nats were set on Pre 75 bikes not pre 78 with longer travel case in point.
I'm sure everyone has an opinion for this so lets hear it.
-
Why do we have pre 78, when the other classes end with 5 or 10? (pre 70, pre 75, pre 85etc etc)
Why not pre 80?
Was there a glut of bikes made in 75, 76 & 77?
Who made this decision?
Am I missing something obvious?
-
Your last line answers your question.
-
So I'm missing something obvious?
Ok, why not pre 73, pre 67, pre 83? ::)
-
I agree, if it was standard on the bike in the year it was made then that should be allowed.
This discusion comes up every year or even more so, the classes [eg pre 78] the vmx gods come up with originally work well and seem to me to be a wise choice. Adding to slakewels argument, last year a 75 cr 250 won the pre 78 250 title which suspension is relatively the same as pre 75 bikes.
-
Why do we have pre 78, when the other classes end with 5 or 10? (pre 70, pre 75, pre 85etc etc)
Why not pre 80?
Was there a glut of bikes made in 75, 76 & 77?
Who made this decision?
Am I missing something obvious?
Pre-65 is supposed to represent the "old pommy thumper" era.
Pre-75 is supposed to represent the short-travel era.
Pre-78 is supposed to represent the transition era from short to long travel (ie: better than the short travel bikes, but uncompetitive against the later long travel ones).
Evo is supposed to represent the "old technology" era (as the rules specifically define).
There are always exceptions, but I think they do that pretty well. Obviously, Evo does it best - the rules specifically state what the rules want, rather than using a defacto age cut-off to do it).
AFAIK, pre-70, pre-85 and pre-90 are more about drawing lines in the sand (although you can find plenty of general trends in technology around the cut-offs, if that makes you feel better).
-
Just to clarify my expertise......I am NO expert in this matter just another bloke with another opinion.
I believe the split was very much a success and kudos must go to the organizers.
I agree with Slakewell. If a bike was manufactured before 12/1977 and happens to have a bit more wheel than others in the era, I don't see why it the bike should need to modified "backwards" to conform with a rule book. The rule regarding eligibility should be as simple as " a bike manufactured ON or BEFORE 12/1977 to be eligible for Pre78 classes. Any bike outside of the standard ruling regarding suspension (wheel) travel must have proof of same in the form of brochures or magazine article from the day. Actually, to the best of my understanding, If you can provide documentry evidence that the bike came from the factory and or custom frame builder (C&J, Al Baker, White Bros etc.) with the extra travel, then it must be considered eligible.
As for the pre78 cut off date, if you take a good look at bikes available between 1975 and 1977, they do fall short in the suspension department compared to 1978 bikes where nearly 11 inches of travel was the norm.
In saying all this, I personally believe that Australian VMX rules should follow what is happening in Europe and the US where they have different cut off dates than we do. We only have to look at the size of the race meetings and all the beautiful exotic machinery they get to see that Aussie VMX is missing out on something....
-
Why do we have pre 78, when the other classes end with 5 or 10? (pre 70, pre 75, pre 85etc etc)
Why not pre 80?
Was there a glut of bikes made in 75, 76 & 77?
Who made this decision?
Am I missing something obvious?
Back, many moons ago, when pre 75 was the "youngest" class on the block, there was a small number of riders who had some '75 model and later vintage bikes that also wanted to ride. Back then nobody thought it would become the premier class, so let them ride( they would only be a "support class") at the most.
Fast foward 10/15 years, the evo class has exploded into mega 2 maico's, yz mono shocks, super svelte RM's and red devil Hondas. So the poor guy on his MX 400 B had to line up against a 490 maico and silver bullet Husky 500's, hence the pre 78 class was introduced to bridge the gap.
Hope that helps, remember evo has been around alot longer than any other post '75 class.
-
Thanks for explaining things guys, all is good now. :)
Obviously people have worked it out over the years.
-
In saying all this, I personally believe that Australian VMX rules should follow what is happening in Europe and the US where they have different cut off dates than we do. We only have to look at the size of the race meetings and all the beautiful exotic machinery they get to see that Aussie VMX is missing out on something....
We only just changed the Nats for the split.We are still evolving.Rider/vmx population numbers show this.
Slakewell perhaps getting a local vmxclub support on your submission may have more push. :)
cheers
-
In saying all this, I personally believe that Australian VMX rules should follow what is happening in Europe and the US where they have different cut off dates than we do. We only have to look at the size of the race meetings and all the beautiful exotic machinery they get to see that Aussie VMX is missing out on something....
We only just changed the Nats for the split.We are still evolving.Rider/vmx population numbers show this.
Slakewell perhaps getting a local vmxclub support on your submission may have more push. :)
cheers
I will use the correct procedure with my submission I have done this before.
-
I agree with Slakewell if the bike was pre 78 built or mods of the time it should be allowed to race , Backward eng is not in my thoughts a logical idea . Iain
-
Are the YZ D models and the 77 Huskies the only examples of this reverse modification?It seems crazy that 77 models raced in the day now have to be reverse modified to meet the class requirements.I would agree with Slakewells argument.Simo?You'd be on board wouldn't you?
-
Slakey - are you going to put your proposal forward across all eras i.e pre 75 as well? Of course I have a vested interest as my YZB has to run restricted. But if the rule change (if successful etc) appied pre 78 can not the same logic be applied pre 75?
-
Slakey - are you going to put your proposal forward across all eras i.e pre 75 as well? Of course I have a vested interest as my YZB has to run restricted. But if the rule change (if successful etc) appied pre 78 can not the same logic be applied pre 75?
I am only putting forward submissions to deal with Pre 78 the big difference being that pre 75 really only has the B model and the Maico's that dont fit with in the rules were as Pre 78 has many standard models that dont fit. My personal believe has always been for Pre 75 that standard factory should be allowed.
-
If you're going to propose a rule change for pre '78 i think it'd be a good idea to change the rule to 10" travel front and rear, that would cover all bikes then.
I put Fox shocks on my RM370 and then had to make spacers to restrict the travel back to 9", most aftermarket shocks will give an RM, Husky, Maico etc more than 9" travel and not many people would still be running the standard shocks.
-
I don't think having a limit is really needed. If for example you converted your RM to have 13inch travel it would handle like a wheel barrow full of Walruses ;D
Pre 78 there were so many hot up parts available to trick up your bike and as VMXers we love this stuff so why would we have rules that stop it, is really not helping the sport.
-
Are the YZ D models and the 77 Huskies the only examples of this reverse modification?It seems crazy that 77 models raced in the day now have to be reverse modified to meet the class requirements.I would agree with Slakewells argument.Simo?You'd be on board wouldn't you?
Virtually all of the Euro '77 model MXers, YZ250/400D, and RM125B are all illegal in standard form.
That said, the YZs (and possibly others) only have over 9" at the brochure - to get the full 9"+ of travel, you must fully compress the top-out springs, which is impossible in use.
FWIW, a YZ125E that's been modified to have 11.5~12" of travel F&R handles quite well, and the extra suspension travel is valuable enough to outweigh the negatives on a rough or jump-filled track. A YZ125E with an aftermarket swingarm would work just as well.
-
I think that placing a limit on the travel is detrimental to the class for the reasons Slakey mentioned. As long as it's stipulated that all major components must have been made prior to December 31 1977 I think the spirit of pre 78 will be maintained.
-
As far as rear suspension are there that many bikes still running standard shocks? When purchasing new or second hand aftermarket shocks, isn't it a matter of getting the correct ones in length ? It isn't that hard to conform, at least with the rear.
So what is the down side of 10" and 10"? Were there any bikes with more than that?
-
10" x 10" suspension travel would be fine in that perfect world where all bikes were kept factory stock but I remember the aftermarket industry going ape shit trying at the time to develop new ways of improving suspension travel and quality. By removing the travel limit it might perhaps encourage more racers to delve into the black art of aftermarket suspension improvement-circa 1977 and we'd see more innovative and therefore interesting bikes.
Of course, the other side of the equation would have the owners of bog stock pre '78 bikes disadvantaged by the guys with the trick bikes. Unfortunately, that's always going to be the case, where even in the pre 65 class where Metisses or Cheneys are infinitely better race bikes than a stock framed Gold Star or Triumph. It's the way our sport rolls 8). Racers since day one have always fiddled with what they had in a bid to improve it. By removing the suspension limit and ensuring that all mods be of the period (with the exception of consumables), we not only make it less restrictive for the racer, we also give the scrutineer one less thing to worry about.
-
Even with the correct length aftermarket shocks you still end up with more than 9" travel, that was half the reason people bought them in the day. 1977 was right in the middle of the suspension evolution and the aftermarket companies were busy building longer travel shocks, forks and fork kits.
A 10" rule sounds pretty good to me.. any more than 10" is hard to obtain from a pre 78 bike without a ridiculously obvious swingarm angle and dangerously small internal fork overlap.
There would definately be a lot less bikes needing suspension measuring at the end of a title meeting instead of impounding the top 5 or 6 from each class and making the owners pull their suspension apart for measuring.
-
I think if you muck with the suspension limit you will end up not representing the pre78 class as it was meant to be...to showcase the first long travel suspension bikes....it's an in-between class and if we start making changes like that then they will end up looking just like EVO bikes.......where does it stop....water cooling kits for your YZ125C?....they where available....as soon as you open the flood gates and allow what ever suspension limit you feel like then all the 75 and some 76 model bikes will disapear into the dungeons again...shit, we have only just had the first Pre78 Nats and had a great turn out of bikes in that class and you want to kill it allready because your Husky got pinged...it's easy to comply and everybody who races and has half a brain knows it's all about suspension and you spend money setting it up to suit your weight, style,travel limits etc....it's not hard....it's been there all along....Shit, how much would a YZ360B be worth without having to limit the suspension travel?...just my opinion.
-
actually DC - that exact thought did cross my mind - if my B was not restricted how much better than most would it be out there in pre 75 and therefore how much sought after :D
-
Regarding the 10" solution there are still some European models that dont fit as factory standard. In regards to my Husky getting removed from the final race points I dont find reverse engineering as the solution as the bike is stock standard in regards to suspension and I do not wish to modify it. Maybe by opening up the rules we can see some 75/76 models get really tricked up. A well set up bike with a good balance will always be faster.
Dave maybe a look at the time sheets from the Nats could show you that it is not suspension lengh that wins races but well setup bikes.As mentioned on page 1 the fastest time overall at the Nats was set with a bike with just 4' rear travel.
-
Mic, the fastest bikes at the Nats are the best riders....us wobblers can only hope they all fall off ;D....old mate on your Husky would have been at the front with the Dutchie even if they where on postie bikes....oh shit, I've just offended the postie bike owners...no mail for me anymore. Theres nothing stopping the 75/6 brigade from tricking there bikes now, but.....most of them are carry over 4" travel bikes with short chassis and swingarms that would only take so much without causing further problems. I take it the Dutchie did the fastest lap time on his 440 Maico at the beginnig of the meeting when the track was like a babies bottom, what where the times at the end in regards to his 74 440 to the 77400?.
-
He was 1.5 secs quicker on the '77 compared to the '74 in the 3rd motos
-
Just to confuse things a little more, both my pre 78 bikes are WELL under the suspension limit of 9". I am lucky to have 8" on both bikes.
And as a side note as I was called a cheat regarding specifically my Maico, it passed with flying colours as did my rm125 (well under the limit at the rear and spot on at the front as a few people witnessed). You only have to conform once and it's done for good.
To ask a question to you Slakewell, are the shocks on the husky original or aftermarket? Bought as new items or second hand? Rebuilt stock or aftermarket ?
I have nearly finished my pre78 250 race bike which is a '75 model which will be behind in the suspension stakes. I do not think I will be at any real disadvantage against the premier bikes in the class.
-
The Husky forks were the problem not the rear as there 10.5 Standard.
The same rider was faster on the much shorter travel KTM 250 which I had the time to set up to comply.
-
I think if you muck with the suspension limit you will end up not representing the pre78 class as it was meant to be...to showcase the first long travel suspension bikes....it's an in-between class and if we start making changes like that then they will end up looking just like EVO bikes.......where does it stop....water cooling kits for your YZ125C?....they where available....as soon as you open the flood gates and allow what ever suspension limit you feel like then all the 75 and some 76 model bikes will disapear into the dungeons again...shit, we have only just had the first Pre78 Nats and had a great turn out of bikes in that class and you want to kill it allready because your Husky got pinged...it's easy to comply and everybody who races and has half a brain knows it's all about suspension and you spend money setting it up to suit your weight, style,travel limits etc....it's not hard....it's been there all along....Shit, how much would a YZ360B be worth without having to limit the suspension travel?...just my opinion.
Good points....disregard my earlier blatherings ;D.
-
Why change something that does not appear to be broken.
My '77 Montesa had over 10" front and rear so did Maico now reduced to 9" why muck around with a class that is growing.
Pre 80 means that EVO basically becomes RM 'T', YZ G&H, Maico, Husky and limited models from other makes. EVO 125 is almost gone completely. All you do is move the perceived problem in Pre78 to EVO.
-
The Husky forks were the problem not the rear as there 10.5 Standard.
The same rider was faster on the much shorter travel KTM 250 which I had the time to set up to comply.
well that's interesting as it was the rear that the eligibility scrutineers seemed to be focused on more so. I therefore assumed the rear end failed to comply. Either way a shame for the rider , especially as it seems you know the rules as they stand and decided to run the gauntlet .
-
The Husky forks were the problem not the rear as there 10.5 Standard.
The same rider was faster on the much shorter travel KTM 250 which I had the time to set up to comply.
well that's interesting as it was the rear that the eligibility scrutineers seemed to be focused on more so. I therefore assumed the rear end failed to comply. Either way a shame for the rider , especially as it seems you know the rules as they stand and decided to run the gauntlet .
I only purchased the Husky a few weeks before the Nats and I wanted to support the growing pre 78 class. The rear suspension was not measured. I did do a half assed job on the forks which I did not read the GCR,s in the way they were measured so once they were pulled apart they moved there full travel which now I know I should have done differently.My KTM that won the 250 class is and enduro frame so it only has 9" rear travel and the forks need a small spacer to reduce them to under 9"so the bike is still well balanced The KTM MC has much longer travel and would be a shame to reverse engineer to make it comply. I will put a submission to MA that asks for standard factory suspension settings be allowed and modified suspension to be 10" of course if you dont agree you can lodge an objection.
-
Why change something that does not appear to be broken.
My '77 Montesa had over 10" front and rear so did Maico now reduced to 9" why muck around with a class that is growing.
Pre 80 means that EVO basically becomes RM 'T', YZ G&H, Maico, Husky and limited models from other makes. EVO 125 is almost gone completely. All you do is move the perceived problem in Pre78 to EVO.
??? Pre-80 becomes a RM-N and CR-RZ benefit, with the 80/81 Maicos and Yamaha Gs & Hs being the biggest losers.
If we were to change Evo to a year cut off, it should be pre-81 rather than pre-80. 1981 was the first year when non-Evo bikes became common, and it also adds a third more eligible bikes to the class (pre-80 would otherwise only be 1978 and 79 models.
The Evo class' success is partly due to the large number of bikes that are eligible AND competitive.
-
Are the YZ D models and the 77 Huskies the only examples of this reverse modification?It seems crazy that 77 models raced in the day now have to be reverse modified to meet the class requirements.I would agree with Slakewells argument.
Simo? You'd be on board wouldn't you?
Not after spending $$$hundreds having my YZ lowered to meet the 9/9 class rule. I'm happy with it the way it is now. Handles a lot better than it did with standard 10/10 suspension ;)
There is an old saying, it's not the size that counts, it's how you use it. I think there is something in that for all of us don't you ;)
-
My years have taught me that the lower the center of G the faster you corner even De coster said the first long travel bikes were shit untill they got it sorted. I just dont believe that and inch or so of travel will make the difference in how far up you finish and there many examples that prove this.
I hate the idea that we must reverse engineer our bikes to fit into rules that we can change if we choose too if it was just a few models like Pre 75 then it's different but as we know the majority of Pre 78 dont comply standard.
-
Looking back over this thread it probably is best we leave the rules as they are, increasing to 10" will only further handicap the '75 and some '76 model bikes that have a lot less than 9" travel standard.(CR250M1 & M2, MX250B etc)
Those bikes will then end up on the scrap heap..
-
I see it as leveling the playing field, not about up-engineering bikes to make them like something they were not buy fitting kits etc.
to be compeditive.
The Full Feilds in All pre 78 classes this year says to me the class is right ATM. Those that dont want to ride on skill rather than changing rules to make it easy on them in the garage, ride up a class then. Thats going to let some of the reserve riders on the line, cause thats where its going - pre 78 will be the premier class in the ealry CMX nationals.
I have a 74YZB but dont ride it pre 75, but i rode a 75 TM in the pre 78 which has no travel. You make the choice what you ride and why and just make it fit the rules.
IF you free up suspension i guarentee next will be arms and then everyone will be modding swingarm mounts all over the shop. and then you have barsterdized the whole class. Sad part is you knew the rules. leave it as it is.
I agree with DC, For a white man he speaks the truth...... well in this case he does....
-
may be evo twin shock
-
Freaky - I think you miss some of the point - it isn't about freeing up the suspenison rules but maybe letting people run with what their bike came back with as standard. More a problem in pre 78 than anywhere - but to say this will then lead to further requests, changes etc........................ ???
-
My years have taught me that the lower the center of G the faster you corner even De coster said the first long travel bikes were shit untill they got it sorted. I just dont believe that and inch or so of travel will make the difference in how far up you finish and there many examples that prove this.
I hate the idea that we must reverse engineer our bikes to fit into rules that we can change if we choose too if it was just a few models like Pre 75 then it's different but as we know the majority of Pre 78 dont comply standard.
I don’t think it’s fair to say the majority of pre 78 bikes don’t meet the 9/9 suspension rule.
I can’t imagine any 75-76 models missing out and how many 77’s don’t fit in.
If this was truly a majority thing and the majority of bikes in the class were affected then I’d say change it but to suit the minority that don’t fit it seems a bit excessive
Realistically how many standard bikes don’t meet the 9/9 rule?
YZ250/400D Yamahas
Husqvarnas, what years, models?
Montesas, what years, models
What I can see happening is the classes will start to creep
Pre 78 becomes a bit closer to EVO
Pre 75 comes a bit closer to pre 78 etc
-
I don’t think it’s fair to say the majority of pre 78 bikes don’t meet the 9/9 suspension rule.
I can’t imagine any 75-76 models missing out and how many 77’s don’t fit in.
If this was truly a majority thing and the majority of bikes in the class were affected then I’d say change it but to suit the minority that don’t fit it seems a bit excessive
Realistically how many standard bikes don’t meet the 9/9 rule?
YZ250/400D Yamahas
Husqvarnas, what years, models?
Montesas, what years, models
[/quote]
77 250/390 Huskies
77 250/360 Montesa's
77 AW Maico's
77KTM/PENTONS
GP111 OSSA's as per the GCR's(not sure why the Bulls aren mentioned) as well as any customs like Kramers or HL500 that were fitted with Ceriani's or marzoochis from the day
or any FOX,FMF replicas , A Make Pace CR250 M2 replica as pictured adb #4.
Thats about all unless you include the RM125B forks
-
The yanks seem to have a reasonable statement regarding this class.
"The Historic classes are intended to represent the "first generation" of long-travel bikes that were commercially available in the 1975-77 period. 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."
Source: http://www.ahrma.org/ahrma_pdfs/Forms/resources/rulebook/sec12.htm
-
^^^^^^ the AHRMA stuff looks ok.
-
If we got rid of those bloody RM125Bs from Pre-78, it would suit me (as a YZ owner...).
Probably be a bit boring riding around by myself, though.
The more I think about it, the more I think that the rule should be "a maximum of 9" of travel, or the standard specification, whichever is greater". Pretty much just the status quo (as it applies to club racing and previous Nationals), without the ball-ache.
-
There really isn't much wrong with our rules as they are, it's a pretty successful formula. The classes were huge at the Nats with a lot of variety of bikes, there was little or no protesting and as far as i know only 1 bike was penalized in the results.
You're always going to get bikes that don't comply no matter what the rules are.
-
What do I need to do to make my RM125B comply?
I'm thinking of filing 3mm off the bottom of the damping rod should fix the forks. With fitting 5mm longer shocks, stock travel at the rear is 8.8" so I can slip a 5mm alloy spacer under the bump rubber?
-
What do I need to do to make my RM125B comply?
I'm thinking of filing 3mm off the bottom of the damping rod should fix the forks. With fitting 5mm longer shocks, stock travel at the rear is 8.8" so I can slip a 5mm alloy spacer under the bump rubber?
Filing 3mm off the damper rods will only give you 3mm less travel, that's not going to make any difference. You're better off using different top out springs, replace the long soft one with a car valve spring that is shorter but harder and doesn't compress as much.
You need to measure the shock shaft travel to work out the rear travel, fitting longer shocks only gives more travel if they have longer shafts than the std shocks, every brand will be different. Some shorter aftermarket shocks will have more shaft travel than std.
-
I only need 3mm less travel on the front don't I? Standard fork travel is 9.1" = 231.14mm. 9" = 228.60mm, 231.14 - 228.60 = 2.54mm.
I'll check the stroke of the shocks when they come.
It doesn't worry me shortening the travel by such a small amount.
-
I only need 3mm less travel on the front don't I? Standard fork travel is 9.1" = 231.14mm. 9" = 228.60mm, 231.14 - 228.60 = 2.54mm.
I'll check the stroke of the shocks when they come.
It doesn't worry me shortening the travel by such a small amount.
Yep.
-
Having 9.1 inches of travel will not get you into trouble....dont listen to the drama queens on here John. Most bikes manufacturers travel spec's are tarted up, I have 125B forks in my A and for the life of me (and I'm a fat bastard) I cant get any where near 9.1 inches of travel.....using the zip tie method around the fork stauchion trick..more like 8.5 inches....and I run 20psi of air in them!
-
I think the pre78 rules have served us well, remember we are just custodians of the sport, pre 78 bikes are a unquie class of bike and i think the last thing we need is another rule change.
worms
-
I don't think the rules need to be changed to allow ANY bike to have more suspension than what it came with standard and the 9 inch seems to work very well for the class. However, the certain bikes that were manufactured before 31/12/77 that did have more WHEEL travel (remember, it is wheel travel and NOT shock length that must comply with GCR's) should be allowed to run as they were in the day without the owner having to rework the suspension. I agree with Slackwell. It's not about trying to add more suspension to the entire class but rather allowing bikes that had the extra travel off of the showroom floor to compete as they were. For example, there could be "exceptions" to the Pre78 9" suspension rule where a bike was manufactured with more travel. The onus of proof of specification would be with the owner/rider of said bike
As has been said, some early LTR bikes handled like a wheelbarrow full of walruses. The forks flexed all over the place and the swingarms weren't much better. In a lot of cases, more is less in that the bike with the extra travel and sky high seat wasn't that good anyway. At the end of the day, a good rider will always be able to ride at the front, no matter what bike us "average" riders have under us.
I stand by my opinion (and that is all it is) that perhaps our GCR's should follow what the yanks and poms have in their rules. It is afterall all about getting bums on seats and great machinery on the track.
Racers and Manufactures have been modifying motorcycles since the beginning of racing and I feel that if someone wants to build a special AND it complies with the rules, then the bike should be able to compete. Take a look at some of the bikes the Brits and Swedes build just so they can have a ride. 1982/3 model bikes built "backwards" with twin shocks, skinnier forks and drum brakes etc. so they can compete in the Evo class. I for one love seeing these "specials" and there is no denying that they get huge numbers of bikes and riders even at club level events......
-
I only need 3mm less travel on the front don't I? Standard fork travel is 9.1" = 231.14mm. 9" = 228.60mm, 231.14 - 228.60 = 2.54mm.
I'll check the stroke of the shocks when they come.
It doesn't worry me shortening the travel by such a small amount.
I would check where the compression holes in your dampener rods are in relation to the top of the bottom out cones before you start hacking away with a file John( actually I wouldnt hack it at all) If the holes are right above the cone taking away 3 mm will move them partially below ,effectively reducing the comp hole and adding alot of comp dampening.
-
Cool, thanks, I'll pull them apart and see what I can do, might file the cones down 3mm also if they cover the comp damping holes?
-
I stand by my opinion (and that is all it is) that perhaps our GCR's should follow what the yanks and poms have in their rules. It is afterall all about getting bums on seats and great machinery on the track.
They have been copied from the U.S.
The Americans can all run within the rules and so do the majority here.
If the time was spent in the shed instead of on here and writing to the powers that be, job would be done. Can't help but think its another case of one person wanting to change the rules to suit himself.
I also must say I do understand the fact that it's how it came from the factory but I think the people that wrote the rules have got it right.
-
I also must say I do understand the fact that it's how it came from the factory but I think the people that wrote the rules have got it right.
i agree.
we're on a good thing at present.
yes we're riding old bikes but we're also in the present year and our sport is healthy as can be and for good reason.
my 2 bobs worth is to keep things the way they are.
Vandy
-
For what its worth i too think leave as is :) the system does work and its all about preserving an era and maintaining a balance .
It does seem a little strange reverse engineering to fit into a class but a line has to be drawn and i believe where the line is now is a good compromise .
Lots of good advise and common sense coming out in this thread .
I was very vocal prior to the nats on this subject ::) but with the huge succsess the nats were i think that speaks volumes .
Whenever a rule is added or revised the vollenteer officials have to see that it is adhered to , as it is the scrutineers seem to have a handle on it and competitors are understanding of the rule .
I would like to see a schematic diagram of the system of measurement in the MOMs so anyone can check there own suspension travel the same way as the scrutineers .
Its great to see the earlier classes so well supported at a national event :) long may it continue :)
-
I also must say I do understand the fact that it's how it came from the factory but I think the people that wrote the rules have got it right.
Brad, for the most part AHRMA is a pretty good organisation but in a number of cases they get it very wrong. Back in 1987 when pre 75 was the only game in town we were looking for a standard to base our rules on so we took the overall philosophy and basic guidelines from the CVRG (California Vintage Race Group) the predecessor to to AHRMA as they'd been running successfully under Dick Manns leadership for a few years. The basic pre '75 rules were adopted almost verbatim from the CVRG rulebook and we added our own pre '70 class and the British pre 65 regs into the mix. Right from the beginning we ran the 7" and 4" suspension limits, with Maico, CCM and some KTM's having to fit restrictors to bring them back into line with the majority of eligible machines. A couple of years later I asked Dick why the CVRG had gone with pre 75 and the 7"x4" limits when there were clearly bikes that fitted the year cutoff but failed the suspension test. I asked him why they didn't make the cut-off pre '74 (as the Poms later did) as that would cut all of the suspension checking out of the scrutineering. His answer was that they'd (wrongly) thought that all bikes of the era were within the 7" and 4" limits, they'd been told "on good authority" that the LTR Maicos were '75 models and weren't eligible. He went on to say that if he could have done it all over again he'd have gone with pre 74.
The CVRG got it wrong with their pre '75 regs so there's a distinct possibility that a similar thing has happened when the AHRMA rule committee sat down to work out the pre '78 regs. Maybe they didn't research the eligibility of all bikes as well as they should have and came to the conclusion the 9" was the market upper limit when in fact, a number of bikes were clearly shown to have over 9" of travel. For any democratic committee to make a correct decision all of the variables must be considered in making that decision. To me it seems so much more sensible to include as many bikes as you can into a class, not exclude others because someone got their research wrong.
-
AHRMA's "Historic" (pre-78) class is a special one. So much so that we outlawed Novation swingarms to keep bikes looking era correct. The 9 inch limit is there to protect another special era, 1975, when it all took off. Just as the '74.5 and carry-over '75 bikes have to use restrictors to keep from outclassing the 74 models, so do the '77 bikes that have more than 9 inches of travel.
I prefer era racing, but the AHRMA rules have stood the time. In my ideal world any bike built before 1978 could run it's stock suspension travel and the 1975 bikes would have their own class, but maybe that's why I'm no longer on AHRMA's Post-Vintage rules committee.
;D
-
Cool, thanks, I'll pull them apart and see what I can do, might file the cones down 3mm also if they cover the comp damping holes?
[/quote
John if you are intending to race local why bother ? Dont hack up your forks .If you really have to do it just place a 3mm nylon washer on top of the top out spring or do the Johnny O way and replace the negative spring with a car valve spring. you just need to somhow find a valve spring with the matching ID/OD and that is 3mm longer than your RM negative spring at full compression
-
It's a valid point to leave a bike as it came even if it has 11" of travel, no doubt. I also see the thought process of the rules as they stand as well. I still say leave as is.
On pre 75, it would be a tragedy to have 74 models in with pre78's. It's tragic enough that '75 models have to mix it with them. Having said that I will be running a '75 model 250 in pre '78 and don't believe I will be at much if any disadvantage . ::)
-
Some very good points there Tahiti red.....leave it as it is I say.....good point about banning the Novation swingarms.....they aint like anything from back in the day.
-
The Pre 78,9 inch limit to suspension travel rule is ridiculous, Imagine telling riders of standard bikes back in 77,you must restrict the travel to 9 inches on a bike that had 10 inches travel standard.
Viper & VCM do not enforce the rule and all works well, people simply ride the bike brand they prefer.
Competing bikes are checked to ensure components are period correct, simple fromula has worked well for a long time.
Seeing the Husky rider at the titles be disqualified was a disgrace, he rode the bike superbly and deserved his just rewards.
VCM committee are preparing a rule amendment and will send to MA for hopefully some discussion.
-
Ok Im for the run it as it was made . but If I want to run in the ACT Nats next year how do I fix my YZ d's 250 and 400 to comply. Ps with my skills it wouldn't matter if I had 12" of travel . Iain
-
The Pre 78,9 inch limit to suspension travel rule is ridiculous, Imagine telling riders of standard bikes back in 77,you must restrict the travel to 9 inches on a bike that had 10 inches travel standard.
Viper & VCM do not enforce the rule and all works well, people simply ride the bike brand they prefer.
Competing bikes are checked to ensure components are period correct, simple fromula has worked well for a long time.
Seeing the Husky rider at the titles be disqualified was a disgrace, he rode the bike superbly and deserved his just rewards.
VCM committee are preparing a rule amendment and will send to MA for hopefully some discussion.
We're not in 1977 we're in 2012 and are trying to preserve an era in vintage racing.
Pre '78 means '75,'76 & '77 model bikes and the 9" rule at least gives the '75 & '76 models a chance to be competitive otherwise it'll become the 1977 class...
The full grids at the Nationals tells us something... The pre '78 class is OK!
-
Having said that I will be running a '75 model 250 in pre '78 and don't believe I will be at much if any disadvantage . ::)
A '75 model won the Pre -78 title in 2010 ::) Leave well enough alone.
-
The CVRG got it wrong with their pre '75 regs so there's a distinct possibility that a similar thing has happened when the AHRMA rule committee sat down to work out the pre '78 regs. Maybe they didn't research the eligibility of all bikes as well as they should have
Excuse me Firko but the AHRMA wrote regs for what they call "the historic" class not our pre78 class.We took part of their rules and gave it to our pre 78 ,without research or consideration perhaps. They have a Historic class G.P class etc which are mostly governed by dimension and tech ,similar to our EVO class.They hardly need to research eligibility when they were creating a class mostly on spec .If we had Historic (9") GP (10.10.5") evo ( 12" ,12"+) there wouldnt be a problem or alternatively pre77,pre79 (excluding 78 cr250's) and EVO.
-
The Pre 78,9 inch limit to suspension travel rule is ridiculous, Imagine telling riders of standard bikes back in 77,you must restrict the travel to 9 inches on a bike that had 10 inches travel standard.
Viper & VCM do not enforce the rule and all works well, people simply ride the bike brand they prefer.
Competing bikes are checked to ensure components are period correct, simple fromula has worked well for a long time.
Seeing the Husky rider at the titles be disqualified was a disgrace, he rode the bike superbly and deserved his just rewards.
VCM committee are preparing a rule amendment and will send to MA for hopefully some discussion.
I am blessed .Thanks to all the Viper and VCM committee members past and present for your efforts and approach.You make VMXing Fun.
-
The Pre 78,9 inch limit to suspension travel rule is ridiculous, Imagine telling riders of standard bikes back in 77,you must restrict the travel to 9 inches on a bike that had 10 inches travel standard.
Viper & VCM do not enforce the rule and all works well, people simply ride the bike brand they prefer.
Competing bikes are checked to ensure components are period correct, simple fromula has worked well for a long time.
Seeing the Husky rider at the titles be disqualified was a disgrace, he rode the bike superbly and deserved his just rewards.
VCM committee are preparing a rule amendment and will send to MA for hopefully some discussion.
I am blessed .Thanks to all the Viper and VCM committee members past and present for your efforts and approach.You make VMXing Fun.
You guys are talking about Club days and the thread is about the Nationals. We don't have any eligibility checks at QVMX club days either and nor do any clubs to my knowledge.
Rules are enforced at Nationals as they always have been. No use bitching about it now cos someone got caught out...
-
The Pre 78,9 inch limit to suspension travel rule is ridiculous, Imagine telling riders of standard bikes back in 77,you must restrict the travel to 9 inches on a bike that had 10 inches travel standard.
Viper & VCM do not enforce the rule and all works well, people simply ride the bike brand they prefer.
Competing bikes are checked to ensure components are period correct, simple fromula has worked well for a long time.
Seeing the Husky rider at the titles be disqualified was a disgrace, he rode the bike superbly and deserved his just rewards.
VCM committee are preparing a rule amendment and will send to MA for hopefully some discussion.
We're not in 1977 we're in 2012 and are trying to preserve an era in vintage racing.
Pre '78 means '75,'76 & '77 model bikes and the 9" rule at least gives the '75 & '76 models a chance to be competitive otherwise it'll become the 1977 class...
The full grids at the Nationals tells us something... The pre '78 class is OK!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 2012 Classic Nationals was the first time a pre-78 bike has been tested and excluded for excessive suspension travel.
That being the case, the rules have effectively allowed stock 1977 models with over 9" of travel to compete for the previous five years of Nationals.
Those bikes have not dominated the class.
There is no reason to think that changing the rule to "9/9" or standard travel (whichever is greater)" will have any unintended consequences - its nothing more than enshrining what has been happening for years.
-
The rules were always there. The difference is it wasn't up to the competitor to protest this time. Everyone was just checked due to instances in the past.
So with the rule change can I run my 11" Simons without restricters? I should be able to if a husky can.....
( on my rm125b).
-
You guys are talking about Club days and the thread is about the Nationals. We don't have any eligibility checks at QVMX club days either and nor do any clubs to my knowledge.
Rules are enforced at Nationals as they always have been. No use bitching about it now cos someone got caught out...
[/quote]
Slakewells first post was about the idea of writing to the MA. Anyway us southeners aint talking about club days, we are talking about our MA affiliated series that use's the MA's rule book.
-
Ok Im for the run it as it was made . but If I want to run in the ACT Nats next year how do I fix my YZ d's 250 and 400 to comply. Ps with my skills it wouldn't matter if I had 12" of travel . Iain
You do what I did Iainyz, you spend the $$money and have it lowered to comply. Believe me if you spend the moneyin the right places the bike will be better for it. Standard they weren't much chop to be honest and you can gain a lot by doing suspension work to the YZ D model.
-
And when does this subject come up? When there is an issue at a NATIONAL event.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 2012 Classic Nationals was the first time a pre-78 bike has been tested and excluded for excessive suspension travel.
That being the case, the rules have effectively allowed stock 1977 models with over 9" of travel to compete for the previous five years of Nationals.
Those bikes have not dominated the class.
There is no reason to think that changing the rule to "9/9" or standard travel (whichever is greater)" will have any unintended consequences - its nothing more than enshrining what has been happening for years.
How do you know what bikes dominated the classes? I didn't see your arse on the startline.
What i'm saying about changing the rule to 10" is that it puts the '75/ '76 models at more of a disadvantage and they may become a less popular choice. The way it is now there is a huge variety of machines in pre '78 and the class is healthy.. No need for change.
-
Slakewells first post was about the idea of writing to the MA. Anyway us southeners aint talking about club days, we are talking about our MA affiliated series that use's the MA's rule book.
Ditto in Qld
-
And when does this subject come up? When there is an issue at a NATIONAL event.
no thats when you hear about it. Whats discussed down here and has been for alongtime isn't necessarily put up for discussion on this forum like Slakewells and others threads .DOH!
-
Slakewells first post was about the idea of writing to the MA. Anyway us southeners aint talking about club days, we are talking about our MA affiliated series that use's the MA's rule book.
Ditto in Qld
So why suggest its about clubdays ? Doh!
-
Brad, A widely ignored rule is not a rule - We've already seen what happens when the 9" rule is ignored for bikes that came stock with more than 9" of travel: everyone rides the bikes they like, and the fastest riders win.
My suggested alternative relates to the bikes' original travel. So that set of 11" travel Simons forks would have to be brought back to the stock travel of the bike they're going on to (or 9" if the bike had 9" or less).
I reckon you'd be quick to accuse me of being difficult if I'd suggested that sort of scenario... ;)
-
Slakewells first post was about the idea of writing to the MA. Anyway us southeners aint talking about club days, we are talking about our MA affiliated series that use's the MA's rule book.
Ditto in Qld
So why suggest its about clubdays ? Doh!
That's what we call them.. QVMX club days!
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 2012 Classic Nationals was the first time a pre-78 bike has been tested and excluded for excessive suspension travel.
That being the case, the rules have effectively allowed stock 1977 models with over 9" of travel to compete for the previous five years of Nationals.
Those bikes have not dominated the class.
There is no reason to think that changing the rule to "9/9" or standard travel (whichever is greater)" will have any unintended consequences - its nothing more than enshrining what has been happening for years.
How do you know what bikes dominated the classes? I didn't see your arse on the startline.
What i'm saying about changing the rule to 10" is that it puts the '75/ '76 models at more of a disadvantage and they may become a less popular choice. The way it is now there is a huge variety of machines in pre '78 and the class is healthy.. No need for change.
I've raced pre-78 at three of the last six Nats, and it's the one class I always ride at club level.
I've seen what bikes win, and why - and it's got SFA to do with the difference between 9 & 10" of suspension. travel
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 2012 Classic Nationals was the first time a pre-78 bike has been tested and excluded for excessive suspension travel.
That being the case, the rules have effectively allowed stock 1977 models with over 9" of travel to compete for the previous five years of Nationals.
Those bikes have not dominated the class.
There is no reason to think that changing the rule to "9/9" or standard travel (whichever is greater)" will have any unintended consequences - its nothing more than enshrining what has been happening for years.
How do you know what bikes dominated the classes? I didn't see your arse on the startline.
What i'm saying about changing the rule to 10" is that it puts the '75/ '76 models at more of a disadvantage and they may become a less popular choice. The way it is now there is a huge variety of machines in pre '78 and the class is healthy.. No need for change.
I've raced pre-78 at three of the last six Nats, and it's the one class I always ride at club level.
I've seen what bikes win, and why - and it's got SFA to do with the difference between 9 & 10" of suspension. travel
I've been in the top 3 three times in pre 78 Nationals in '09 & 2012 and the bikes around me haven't been '75/'76 models that's what i'm saying. I'm talking about the difference between a proposed 10" and the 7" travel '75/'76 models, it'll only make them less competitive and less desirable.
-
Brad, A widely ignored rule is not a rule - We've already seen what happens when the 9" rule is ignored for bikes that came stock with more than 9" of travel: everyone rides the bikes they like, and the fastest riders win.
My suggested alternative relates to the bikes' original travel. So that set of 11" travel Simons forks would have to be brought back to the stock travel of the bike they're going on to (or 9" if the bike had 9" or less).
I reckon you'd be quick to accuse me of being difficult if I'd suggested that sort of scenario... ;)
Well my forks are period correct , available in the day. I would argue that i have as much right to run them.
A widely ignored rule? IMO its not widely ignored. It's THE most talked about rule there is. Also IMO slakewell was counting on no body protesting but the system was different this time catching one out. I like the idea of checking top finishers regardless as was done with the pre 78 classes. It would stop heaps more of those running outside the rules.
-
I suppose I'm sitting on the fence on this one..
I ride IT400C's in the Pre 78 class, so I know about the disadvantages a lack of suspension travel brings on.. But I ride the 76 model because I love them, not because I think it's the bike that will make it easiest for me to win the class.
And If I had I YZ-D, I'd probably want to run it as it came from the factory too rather than restrict it to 9" of travel.
But in all honesty, I can't see any point in changing the rules that are obviously working in a class that enjoys so much popularity.
- Run a Pre 78 bike at more than 9" of travel in club days if you want - it's the way it happens now.
- If you want to run a series of events, but don't agree with the MA Pre 78 - 9" travel rule, then specifiy in your Supp Regs that you'll be running Pre 78 as a 10" or 'As it came from the factory' class. That's what the Supplementary Regulations are for. As long as it's not a State or National Title event, and there's no safety issues in the Supp Regs, you can run your events to whatever rules you want.
- And if you're keen enough to race your Pre 78 bike at a National or State Title, then be prepared to restrict the travel to meet the GCR's...
My $0.02....
-
Brad is right, only the winning machines need to be inspected to ensure the rules are applied, makes no diff to us back markers if a machine is raced with 1" more travel, hasnt helped me ;D
worms
-
Brad is right, only the winning machines need to be inspected to ensure the rules are applied, makes no diff to us back markers if a machine is raced with 1" more travel, hasnt helped me ;D
worms
I think all should comply. It's obviously too hard to check every single bike though.
-
damn :-\
worms
-
Well my forks are period correct , available in the day. I would argue that i have as much right to run them.
A widely ignored rule? IMO its not widely ignored. It's THE most talked about rule there is. Also IMO slakewell was counting on no body protesting but the system was different this time catching one out. I like the idea of checking top finishers regardless as was done with the pre 78 classes. It would stop heaps more of those running outside the rules.
Up until the 2012 CMX Nationals, the 9/9" rule was not being enforced (at least not for standard bikes) - it was ignored in the only place that matters: on race day.
How many people have actually limited the travel of their pre-78 bikes to comply? A half a dozen? There's a truck-load more unmodified, and technically illegal bikes being used in VMX (including previous Nationals) than modified ones...
There IS a good argument that your forks should be allowed in pre-78 if the were available in 1977, just like Shinobi water-cooled heads, etc.
But those are after-market parts that were never common. This issue is about standard bikes that must be a true representation of the era - a different scenario to mega-trick forks.
-
The thing that gets me is we are only talking (if you call it that) about this on here is because a punter on here who knows better entered a bike with a hired gun on it, got pinged for too much travel and disqualified....his rider was always going to be up the pointy end so why?....his other bike complied....he knew the rules.....it was pointed out on here months before the event and there was 5000 pages on it....but he still did it.....is that stupid or just taking the piss?....the pre 78 class racing was a great specticle to watch and the variety of bikes was like a pre 75 race....awesome...nothing needs to be changed except a few peoples mindsets. I predict in the future that there will be age group racing in pre 78 which is a huge positive for a small sport like ours, preserve what we have, it doesnt cost any extra or very little to make your bike comply, suspension is something you set up just like building your wheels or motor...get on with it....get a life.
-
What about 2010 nationals at conondale? I don't give a toss about the forks, just playing the where does it stop card. I'm sure with all the accusations on here of cheater bikes, mine in particular, was a big reason why there was a major check of 'all' pre '78 bikes.
-
There's no question what the rules say.
The issue is what they should say.
I think that a stock 1977 model bike should always be legal for the pre-78 class.
-
The thing that gets me is we are only talking (if you call it that) about this on here is because a punter on here who knows better entered a bike with a hired gun on it, got pinged for too much travel and disqualified....his rider was always going to be up the pointy end so why?....his other bike complied....he knew the rules.....it was pointed out on here months before the event and there was 5000 pages on it....but he still did it.....is that stupid or just taking the piss?....the pre 78 class racing was a great specticle to watch and the variety of bikes was like a pre 75 race....awesome...nothing needs to be changed except a few peoples mindsets. I predict in the future that there will be age group racing in pre 78 which is a huge positive for a small sport like ours, preserve what we have, it doesnt cost any extra or very little to make your bike comply, suspension is something you set up just like building your wheels or motor...get on with it....get a life.
Exactly!
-
they are Nathan, the rules were'nt written to delete bikes from the class, they were written to define a specific era. they are saying, to keep these few bikes in this era, which is what we want, lets ( right or wrong) bring them in line with the majority to define the class, and that is reduce your suspension to 9".
it's not that hard, you just have to race to the rules
and I have a YZ400D with a fox airshock fitted that meets the guidelines as I want to race pre78 and not evo on this bike
worms
-
For those that think our rules suck and the USA does it better, the Historic class(pre '78) rules state suspension travel must be limited to 9" and mentions the '77 Husky, Maico and KTM all must have the std suspension limited to 9" travel!
And also in the UK the class is pre '77 where no 1977 model bikes are allowed, they must race in Twinshock(our Evo)!!
So what's so bad about our pre '78 rules??
-
Riding a 77 model in Evo would suck. That's why we only saw one or two early model bikes at fairleigh. The poms got it wrong there. They tend to get things wrong quite a bit. Why the hell would you want to drive on the left side of the road when most drive on the right. Would have made importing cars a hell of a lot easier.... :D Damn you Poms!
-
... ( right or wrong) ....
And that's exactly what I was saying when I said "The issue is what they should say".
We need to either get them right or work through the discussion until we're all convinced that they're already right* - the fact that you needed to add the "right or wrong" disclaimer shows that we aren't there yet.
I'm am genuinely amazed at the resistance to changing the rules, particularly on this issue. It's clear that these issues don't go away by saying "the rules are fine, just suck it up", so we're dooming ourselves to having these discussions every three months until we properly address them.
*You'll never please absolutely everyone, but when the rules exclude standard bikes of the era, I doubt you'll ever get a clear majority.
-
Riding a 77 model in Evo would suck. That's why we only saw one or two early model bikes at fairleigh. The poms got it wrong there. They tend to get things wrong quite a bit. Why the hell would you want to drive on the left side of the road when most drive on the right. Would have made importing cars a hell of a lot easier.... :D Damn you Poms!
Why arent you in the shed getting my rides ready for the classic ;D your tanks in the post today :)
http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/76-driving-orientation-a-world-map
-
*You'll never please absolutely everyone, but when the rules exclude standard bikes of the era, I doubt you'll ever get a clear majority.
That's the thing. You won't please everybody. The clear majority that competes in pre 78 voted in the numbers that were at the titles.
Again, one guy gets pinged and he wants to then change the rules.
So all the guys that have reversed engineered their bikes to conform to the rules should now remove the restricters? Sure they don't have to but certainly a slap in the face to those that have done the right thing.
Riding a 77 model in Evo would suck. That's why we only saw one or two early model bikes at fairleigh. The poms got it wrong there. They tend to get things wrong quite a bit. Why the hell would you want to drive on the left side of the road when most drive on the right. Would have made importing cars a hell of a lot easier.... :D Damn you Poms!
Why arent you in the shed getting my rides ready for the classic ;D your tanks in the post today :)
http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/76-driving-orientation-a-world-map
ha you need to keep up with technology Bill. With an iPhone I can post from where ever, including the shed. I'm prepping a real trick mud bug for you as we speak! Thanks for sending the tank off.
-
havent you got a pool you should be working on, Bill can race anything, he dosnt need a race prep bike 8)
worms
-
So do I leave the TS185 Works bike under the house Bill?....or flog it off to old mate?....you got that list of riders for the Conondale Classic yet?
-
So do I leave the TS185 Works bike under the house Bill?....or flog it off to old mate?....you got that list of riders for the Conondale Classic yet?
SHHHHHHHHHHHHHH dont tell everyone about the works bike :)
Quote " havent you got a pool you should be working on, Bill can race anything, he dosnt need a race prep bike " Quote
worms
Thanks Trev :)
Joan you might have to up the anti ::) dont know what i gotta do to get these Barstards motivated >:( its not like they dont need the practice :-[ I think they are still licking their wounds after the Dutchie toweled up at the Johnny Old ;D
The Buzzards in negotiations again though so dont write him off yet ;) get Dodgee on the case building his bike ;D
Is Mutch coming ???
-
Bill ... Brother "Mutch" ( Graaant ) won't be over this year as he is still nursing a neck injury.
Get your numbers together so we can sort the bikes out.
-
Not that it matters but I didn't just turn up to the Nats with a long travel bike that I knew was illegal or didn't comply , I just did a bad job of fixing it.
The forks on the bike were border line but once pulled apart did move full travel but again this was my fault by not reading the GCR's on how there measured. So I forked up. To say I didn't try to comply is not correct or just relied on protest is not correct.
-
Fair enough. I apologise for assuming.
So why not sort it like everyone else and be done with it.
-
For one I have always believed that bikes should not have to be reversed engineered.
I love those FOX RM's and think should run how they were in 77.
More of the pre 78 bikes don't comply than do.
Some bikes are not cheap and can owe the owner several thousands dollars so to have to change what is stock just so they can race in reality reduces they value.
I strongly believe that in this class much more over 9" really just forks up the corner speed and is no real advantage.
Why make it harder to race than it needs to be.
For example why would I race my Husky again without a rule change? I know for sure that the tape measure will be out. I would really like to import a KTM MC in but now know it does not comply so why would I spend 5k getting one.
All I have said I'm doing is submitting a submission to MA with my views on changes to Pre 78 rules, I can not change the rules only ask that my submission is looked at. Anyone who does not agree with my view can oppose them in writing to MA.
-
For one I have always believed that bikes should not have to be reversed engineered.
I love those FOX RM's and think should run how they were in 77.
More of the pre 78 bikes don't comply than do.
Some bikes are not cheap and can owe the owner several thousands dollars so to have to change what is stock just so they can race in reality reduces they value.
I strongly believe that in this class much more over 9" really just forks up the corner speed and is no real advantage.
Why make it harder to race than it needs to be.
For example why would I race my Husky again without a rule change? I know for sure that the tape measure will be out. I would really like to import a KTM MC in but now know it does not comply so why would I spend 5k getting one.
All I have said I'm doing is submitting a submission to MA with my views on changes to Pre 78 rules, I can not change the rules only ask that my submission is looked at. Anyone who does not agree with my view can oppose them in writing to MA.
It's when you say the things such as in this post that makes me question your motives is all.
First you say you only got the bike a few weeks ago and that is why it didn't get sorted. Then you say you did but did it wrong. Now you say why bother racing the Husky without a rule change.Why can't you be bothered to just finish the job on the forks and be done with it.
Then to say you won't import a ktm because it won't comply? How can you expect a guy to swallow that?
Regarding Fox RM's, did you not see my rm125B? It has all the trick gear that you can/could buy. Fox shocks and 11'' Simons forks.Looks exactly as it would have back in the day. And its legal.
Part of this whole argument ( talking about quite a few guy's post's here) talks about lower centre of gravity and the effect it has on the bike. The bike's suspension is restricted, not lowered. It's stance is exactly the same as it was before being modified. The point of bottoming out has changed.
I will also say that 'a bike is worth less because of it's suspension being restricted to nine inches' is a crock of shit.
There are only two possibilities why you want to change the rule. Because you strongly believe you shouldn't have to restrict a standard bike to ride in it's correct era or because you just couldn't be bothered to do it. Because it's a disadvantage or they are worth less or it's harder to race etc etc, is all just bull.
With the fact that pre'78 has been running for so long and so many have complied, changing it now seems wrong to me. Again your bike will not look or feel any different and an hour or two in the shed will have it sorted for the rest of it's racing life.
-
....
With the fact that pre'78 has been running for so long and so many have complied, changing it now seems wrong to me.
...
But how many have made changes to their bikes to comply before now?
My bikes have always complied simply because they came factory with less than 9" of travel - but if we're honest, sod-all people have actually modified their bikes back to 9". In fact, before this year's Nats, I'd suggest that the number would be very close to zero...
-
Slakewells first post was about the idea of writing to the MA. Anyway us southeners aint talking about club days, we are talking about our MA affiliated series that use's the MA's rule book.
Ditto in Qld
So why suggest its about clubdays ? Doh!
That's what we call them.. QVMX club days!
Well I dont know what you do in your state I only know that we have (vcm) has a series and that what its called.I dont think that I have ever raced a VMX clubday
-
....
With the fact that pre'78 has been running for so long and so many have complied, changing it now seems wrong to me.
...
But how many have made changes to their bikes to comply before now?
My bikes have always complied simply because they came factory with less than 9" of travel - but if we're honest, sod-all people have actually modified their bikes back to 9". In fact, before this year's Nats, I'd suggest that the number would be very close to zero...
My two, John Kittle's two, Tatey's , The guy with the yz from Darwin, Dodgey's , Simo did his but didn't end up riding, Mitch Semmen's yz, that's 9 off the top.
-
For those that think our rules suck and the USA does it better, the Historic class(pre '78) rules state suspension travel must be limited to 9" and mentions the '77 Husky, Maico and KTM all must have the std suspension limited to 9" travel!
And also in the UK the class is pre '77 where no 1977 model bikes are allowed, they must race in Twinshock(our Evo)!!
So what's so bad about our pre '78 rules??
the point is pre78 isnt the historic class and the historic class in not the pre 78 class
-
Riding a 77 model in Evo would suck. That's why we only saw one or two early model bikes at fairleigh. The poms got it wrong there. They tend to get things wrong quite a bit. Why the hell would you want to drive on the left side of the road when most drive on the right. Would have made importing cars a hell of a lot easier.... :D Damn you Poms!
I ride a 77 model in both pre 78 and EVO in VCM and VIPER all the time.I love it.
-
For those that think our rules suck and the USA does it better, the Historic class(pre '78) rules state suspension travel must be limited to 9" and mentions the '77 Husky, Maico and KTM all must have the std suspension limited to 9" travel!
And also in the UK the class is pre '77 where no 1977 model bikes are allowed, they must race in Twinshock(our Evo)!!
So what's so bad about our pre '78 rules??
the point is pre78 isnt the historic class and the historic class in not the pre 78 class
They are basically the same.. read them.
I mentioned the US and UK classes because a couple of people said other countries did it better.. Total crap!
-
[/quote]We're not in 1977 we're in 2012 and are trying to preserve an era in vintage racing.
Pre '78 means '75,'76 & '77 model bikes and the 9" rule at least gives the '75 & '76 models a chance to be competitive otherwise it'll become the 1977 class...
The full grids at the Nationals tells us something... The pre '78 class is OK!
[/quote]
we're not in 77 we're in 2012 and trying to preserve an era .
thats an oxymoron.
If you dont want to do what was done in 1977 what era are you trying to preserve or create?Not everyone buys a bike because of its suspension travel or goes to a race for the win . They go because they wont to showcase their bike , their loved brand ,model or replica and have a ride . What is the show about if ou have to detune even an of the floor spec bike from the era?
The arguement it will become the 77 class is BS.The competiveness of a bike due to its suspension travel will depend alot on the rider and the nature of the track.The full grids might have something to do with the split and no EVO class - maybe?
In anycase the amount of time and posts spent on these endless pre 78 threads over the last few years seems to me to suggest that all is not OK with alot of people.
-
For those that think our rules suck and the USA does it better, the Historic class(pre '78) rules state suspension travel must be limited to 9" and mentions the '77 Husky, Maico and KTM all must have the std suspension limited to 9" travel!
And also in the UK the class is pre '77 where no 1977 model bikes are allowed, they must race in Twinshock(our Evo)!!
So what's so bad about our pre '78 rules??
the point is pre78 isnt the historic class and the historic class in not the pre 78 class
They are basically the same.. read them.
I mentioned the US and UK classes because a couple of people said other countries did it better.. Total crap!
Is the EVO class the pre 80 class ? no .its regulated by specification and tech, so is the historic class ( its not meant to be pre 78 clss)and all of the AHRMA'S class's
-
We're not in 1977 we're in 2012 and are trying to preserve an era in vintage racing.
Pre '78 means '75,'76 & '77 model bikes and the 9" rule at least gives the '75 & '76 models a chance to be competitive otherwise it'll become the 1977 class...
The full grids at the Nationals tells us something... The pre '78 class is OK!
[/quote]
we're not in 77 we're in 2012 and trying to preserve an era .
thats an oxymoron.
If you dont want to do what was done in 1977 what era are you trying to preserve or create?Not everyone buys a bike because of its suspension travel or goes to a race for the win . They go because they wont to showcase their bike , their loved brand ,model or replica and have a ride . What is the show about if ou have to detune even an of the floor spec bike from the era?
The arguement it will become the 77 class is BS.The competiveness of a bike due to its suspension travel will depend alot on the rider and the nature of the track.The full grids might have something to do with the split and no EVO class - maybe?
In anycase the amount of time and posts spent on these endless pre 78 threads over the last few years seems to me to suggest that all is not OK with alot of people.
[/quote]Whatever.. if you want the rule changed it aint gunna happen on here. At the end of the day i couldn't give a fork, I build a bike to suit the class and go racing.
-
Riding a 77 model in Evo would suck. That's why we only saw one or two early model bikes at fairleigh. The poms got it wrong there. They tend to get things wrong quite a bit. Why the hell would you want to drive on the left side of the road when most drive on the right. Would have made importing cars a hell of a lot easier.... :D Damn you Poms!
I ride a 77 model in both pre 78 and EVO in VCM and VIPER all the time.I love it.
Again you are talking about a club day. You want to call it a fancy name to make out its a big series but it has to be a different form of a club day. I'm talking about a over in England mainly (in that quote you high lighted) with the level of competition over there you wouldn't lob up with a '77 model to race twin shock and they don't. Same as you wouldn't bring one to an evo Nationals here.
The rules have been the same since their inception. Why all of a sudden now are they not good enough? Sure as shit you were around at the beginning of pre78. Why the fork didn't you do it then? I got into vmx in '07. In over 5 years its been good enough, the yanks deal with it. If it's such an injustice, why now? Because one guy got pinged and so he is going to turn it on it's head to suit himself.If he didn't get pinged and old mate got his second place, I bet there would not be this latest drama on here.
Everybody gets the bit where a bike that comes out standard and it should run. I also understand the reason behind limiting them to bring the class closer to try and put a more level playing field for the class, just as they did for pre 75. You carry on as if you have to bastardise your bike to run it when its a simple mod for the front and as part of the restoration process of the bike, shocks that are in line with the rules are purchased and job is done. Alternatively a small spacer gets put under the bump stop.
You also have so much to add to these types of threads yet I have never seen you at any major event that I have attended, especially a national event, even when it's in your back yard.
While I'm here as a side note, you recently brought up my Maico as not complying, insinuating I was a cheat. Well as you would know I won the class and my bike was WELL under spec. Seeing as I really took offence to your accusation which was very unfounded, here is a nice big f uck you as well.
-
Brad, your a great custodian of the english language. ;D
they just dont get the fact, that the rules are keeping these bikes in the pre78 class and not pushing them into Evo. and being able to race pre78 bikes in EVO, so what? good riders can ride well on any bike, but its not about how good a rider you are, it's about showcasing era's off motocross and having Rules reflecting that. and it's not that hard to comply.
bloody Victorians, they allways do it better ??
worms
-
For those that think our rules suck and the USA does it better, the Historic class(pre '78) rules state suspension travel must be limited to 9" and mentions the '77 Husky, Maico and KTM all must have the std suspension limited to 9" travel!
And also in the UK the class is pre '77 where no 1977 model bikes are allowed, they must race in Twinshock(our Evo)!!
So what's so bad about our pre '78 rules??
the point is pre78 isnt the historic class and the historic class in not the pre 78 class
They are basically the same.. read them.
I mentioned the US and UK classes because a couple of people said other countries did it better.. Total crap!
Is the EVO class the pre 80 class ? no .its regulated by specification and tech, so is the historic class ( its not meant to be pre 78 clss)and all of the AHRMA'S class's
Feel free to tell us the difference between the pre 78 class and the Historic class, especially seeing the Historic class says machines up to and including the 1977 model year..
They allow the '78 Harley and KX250 to race.. big deal
-
Changing the rules to make standard bikes legal, is hardly going to "turn it on its head".
We've accepted that the difference in travel makes sod-all difference to the bikes' speed, and may even be detrimental.
What's the argument against allowing standard bikes to compete, again? That we're afraid of change?
-
Is this about Victorians and New South Welshman being a bunch of sore loosers?....they seen to be the only ones wingging....it always erks me too when you get the tossers that dont race put there 2 bobs worth in. The system works pretty good that we have, everybody that RACES has the same rule book to adhere too and it's pretty basic shit but theres always somebody that pushes the limits and when it turns to shit its not there fault....modern society= blame someone/thing else....it couldnt possibly be me...and then just keep arguing some invalid point untill you wear them down....sound familiar?..... You blokes need to get out of your dark, cold, dingey holes, come up to QLD (7 nil cockroaches) and race...we have a great time up here...2 awesome clubs...100's of happy punters....more race meetings than you could poke a stick at and get on with life. Mick, you should have thought about putting your post on here before you did it because up untill then no one had bought it up about someone being pinged for incorect travel and disqualified...I feel sorry for your rider as he is the one who got disqualified and its his name, not yours. Answer this...had your bike got away with it, would we be talking about this now......I think we all know the answer to that. The grids in the pre78 Nationals and how sucessful it was goes to show that where on a good thing.....another QLD inititive....you blokes would be still under your mushrooms if it wasnt for us....just follow us eh...learn from the best.
-
I so look forward to meeting you one day Tate.
-
Changing the rules to make standard bikes legal, is hardly going to "turn it on its head".
We've accepted that the difference in travel makes sod-all difference to the bikes' speed, and may even be detrimental.
What's the argument against allowing standard bikes to compete, again? That we're afraid of change?
for me personally, I'm against it because I came into Vmx, bought bikes, ran them in the correct eras, adhered to the rules, part of which making both my pre78 bikes comply and being happy to comply, to then have someone get done at the nats and crying foul and using that as a basis to change rules that have been in place from the beginning. And it's not too hard to conform to the rules.
-
Come up to the Conondale Classic Mont....4th and 5th of August, best track in Australia, "Pro Class" races with the best ever assembled field to be seen on a race track for a vintage meet (another QLD first....ill be putting a list up of riders shortly)...come on Mont....you'll have a ball....get over the 300km thing....well look after you like a brother ;D seriously, we would love some Vics to come up.
-
We're not in 1977 we're in 2012 and are trying to preserve an era in vintage racing.
Pre '78 means '75,'76 & '77 model bikes and the 9" rule at least gives the '75 & '76 models a chance to be competitive otherwise it'll become the 1977 class...
The full grids at the Nationals tells us something... The pre '78 class is OK!
we're not in 77 we're in 2012 and trying to preserve an era .
thats an oxymoron.
[/quote]Whatever.. if you want the rule changed it aint gunna happen on here. At the end of the day i couldn't give a fork, I build a bike to suit the class and go racing.
[/quote]
I think that what slakewell wrote at the beginning of the thread - second line.
Yer exactly , I don't think that people will runaway from pre78 because they dont have to put spacers in their suspension.Do you ?
-
its like what came first, the chicken or the egg.
just ride to rules and you dont have a problem, you dont like those rules, ride another class, just make sure you have self-returning folding footpegs ;D
cheers Worms
-
Surely it's the same mind set as pre 75 and limiting the suspension on certain bikes. Why not change those rules the same way as well?
I'd say because those rules didn't affect you ( slakewell ) at the nats.
-
I must admit Mr Brad - well written - I would support removing the travel restrictions to allow original bikes to compete as I have one and think it is silly to take a step back - however your statement of the otherr side of the coin re bringing the entire class/era/period together (ie for the sake of the shorter travel 76 etc era bikes) makes sense also and probably is for the greater good of the class for sake of numbers.
ta
-
I ride a 77 model in both pre 78 and EVO in VCM and VIPER all the time.I love it.
Again you are talking about a club day. You want to call it a fancy name to make out its a big series but it has to be a different form of a club day.
Okay have it your way , everything that isn't the Nats is a club event from now on .No problem, except we used the MA rule book to run our "clubday" series (and are MA affiliated) so when discussing the MA rules why do you make a differentiation between our "clubday" series and the Nats ?
-
I must admit Mr Brad - well written - I would support removing the travel restrictions to allow original bikes to compete as I have one and think it is silly to take a step back - however your statement of the otherr side of the coin re bringing the entire class/era/period together (ie for the sake of the shorter travel 76 etc era bikes) makes sense also and probably is for the greater good of the class for sake of numbers.
ta
Agreed :-)
-
I ride a 77 model in both pre 78 and EVO in VCM and VIPER all the time.I love it.
[/quote] I'm talking about a over in England mainly (in that quote you high lighted) with the level of competition over there you wouldn't lob up with a '77 model to race twin shock and they don't. Same as you wouldn't bring one to an evo Nationals here.
[/quote]
In the "clubday" series that I race in I have been racing against to name a few , Gary Pye ,Arno Franz and the Smith bro's all known Nats place getting in recent times.I prefer and have had better results with my 77 bike than the evo bike that I had prior.I will bring my 77 bike to the nationals and race EVO on it when I know that I wont be driving home with a sour taste in my mouth like my friend did from Conondale.
-
I ride a 77 model in both pre 78 and EVO in VCM and VIPER all the time.I love it.
[/quote] Again you are talking about a club day. You want to call it a fancy name to make out its a big series but it has to be a different form of a club day.
[/quote]
Okay have it your way , everything that isn't the Nats is a club event from now on .No problem, except we used the MA rule book to run our "clubday" series (and are MA affiliated) so when discussing the MA rules why do you make a differentiation between our "clubday" series and the Nats ?
[/quote]
so if your not racing for sheep stations, you cant be affiliated to MA? so you cant change supp regs to suit your event? even more so what event of yours are you running with level 4 scrutineers,they must be MA appointed, to determine the rules and elligabilty, I'm a bit lost on it all, are you guys paying to run a National event evry time you race or are you just dealing with MV? then MV would run your State Titles, so you must be running a closed to club event, wouldnt you?
confuesd worms
-
I ride a 77 model in both pre 78 and EVO in VCM and VIPER all the time.I love it.
[/quote]
The rules have been the same since their inception. Why all of a sudden now are they not good enough? Sure as shit you were around at the beginning of pre78. Why the fork didn't you do it then? I got into vmx in '07. In over 5 years its been good enough, the yanks deal with it. If it's such an injustice, why now?
[/quote]
You assume too much , as usual. I don't know when the beginning of our pre 78 rules were .When my brother started racing VMX on a 77 YZ250 in 96 neither of us everlooked at a rule book ,same goes for when I did a couple of years in the early 00's on my 400 .I only became aware of the rules just after I started on this forum which was 08 . What happened at Conondale motivated me to get my MOMs out and start reading.
-
I ride a 77 model in both pre 78 and EVO in VCM and VIPER all the time.I love it.
[/quote] [/color]
You also have so much to add to these types of threads yet I have never seen you at any major event that I have attended, especially a national event, even when it's in your back yard.
[/quote]
I was thinking of it but have been put off.
I wouldn't ride Broadford if the Nats were there every year and they paid me to turn up.
-
I ride a 77 model in both pre 78 and EVO in VCM and VIPER all the time.I love it.
[/quote]
While I'm here as a side note, you recently brought up my Maico as not complying, insinuating I was a cheat. Well as you would know I won the class and my bike was WELL under spec. Seeing as I really took offence to your accusation which was very unfounded, here is a nice big f uck you as well.
[/quote]
Someone else who apparently had some history on your bike mention about the bike have 78 model forks .I mearly agreed once it was brought to my attention. I didn't reply to your crap about the caps being aftermarket becuase I didnt want to embarress you any further . Although I did save pics of all the main aftermarket air fork caps for Maicos at the time.
Oh very good Thank you and a nice a bigga forka off to you too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP2tqJTSfgU
-
you guys crack me up ;D, :P
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP2tqJTSfgU
You've gotta love a bit of Tom Waits to put it all in perspective! Down by Law is one of my all time favourite movies, much more entertaining than 10 pages of arguing the toss on those 'waskally wules'.
I've changed my opinion twice over the last 10 pages and now reckon we should leave the pre '78 class rules well alone. The class is one probably the fastest growing in the sport so why bugger with something that obviously works. No set of rules is ever going to satisfy everyone but as long as they satisfy the majority that's a win for democracy. ;) Now, where's my Tom Waits 'Blue Valentine' CD?
-
you guys crack me up ;D, :P
Have to agree some of you need to take a breath and get a fresh beer from the fridge.
I have to smile when someone thinks they know my motivation for broaching this topic. No I haven't just started this believe because of my Husky at the Nats I have always said that bikes should be legal in stock trim. Brad I know you were very busy at the Nats riding superbly but if you had the time to look at the bikes ridding Pre 78 you may have noticed that many of the mid pack punters would not have passed the tape measure as Nathan pointed out up until this year Nats no one gave a toss. This is not about trying to gain some type of advantage but simply to keep this great class free of bull shit finger pointing that has killed some classes. I would be happy to ride and own a 9" travel KTM 400 if I could find one.
IMO and it is just mine that now the can of worms has been opened at this year Nats the finger pointing will only get worse and the Mid pack guys will stop coming.
-
I ride a 77 model in both pre 78 and EVO in VCM and VIPER all the time.I love it.
Again you are talking about a club day. You want to call it a fancy name to make out its a big series but it has to be a different form of a club day.
Okay have it your way , everything that isn't the Nats is a club event from now on .No problem, except we used the MA rule book to run our "clubday" series (and are MA affiliated) so when discussing the MA rules why do you make a differentiation between our "clubday" series and the Nats ?
Probably because you take bits out of my post and twist it to suit your own argument. I never said everything except a national is a club day. You talk your 'series' up as if it's a top tier event. It's a series of club days. We have club days that are sanctioned and governed by the same rules. You were making the distinction that your series doesn't carry on about rules and is laid back. So are our club days.
Completely different to a nationals or even a big open event like mr Vmx.
-
you guys crack me up ;D, :P
Have to agree some of you need to take a breath and get a fresh beer from the fridge.
I have to smile when someone thinks they know my motivation for broaching this topic. No I haven't just started this believe because of my Husky at the Nats I have always said that bikes should be legal in stock trim. Brad I know you were very busy at the Nats riding superbly but if you had the time to look at the bikes ridding Pre 78 you may have noticed that many of the mid pack punters would not have passed the tape measure as Nathan pointed out up until this year Nats no one gave a toss. This is not about trying to gain some type of advantage but simply to keep this great class free of bull shit finger pointing that has killed some classes. I would be happy to ride and own a 9" travel KTM 400 if I could find one.
IMO and it is just mine that now the can of worms has been opened at this year Nats the finger pointing will only get worse and the Mid pack guys will stop coming.
Nathan did not rightly point out that no one gave a toss up till now. I corrected him with the 2009 nationals where it all came to a head back then. People were unhappy about bikes that were raced at coffs back in 2007 and when a particular bike in the same trim was still running 'illegally' , said bike and others were protested and upheld. As also stated, it was heavily debated prior to these nationals again.
Also then the mid pack punters should be put on notice as well.
As I bought shocks specifically to be within the rules, I would have to buy a new set to be on a level playing field. That will certainly piss me off.
-
Again you are talking about a club day. You want to call it a fancy name to make out its a big series but it has to be a different form of a club day.
Okay have it your way , everything that isn't the Nats is a club event from now on .No problem, except we used the MA rule book to run our "clubday" series (and are MA affiliated) so when discussing the MA rules why do you make a differentiation between our "clubday" series and the Nats ?
Probably because you take bits out of my post and twist it to suit your own argument. I never said everything except a national is a club day. You talk your 'series' up as if it's a top tier event.
[/quote]
maybe you should quote me on talking our "series up or people will start to think its all in your own little head.
I said that or series (vcm) are MA affiliated and are governed by the MA rule book.It makes no difference that you wantto call it a series of clubdays or of I talk it up or if your think that I talk it up.Its part of the sanctioning body , the MA, same as the Nats so there s just as much validity in being involved or instigating change.
I dont think claiming MA affiliation is a talk up but you are definitely talking our series down.
Good fuggin' luck to you Bud
-
Is this about Victorians and New South Welshman being a bunch of sore loosers?....they seen to be the only ones wingging....it always erks me too when you get the tossers that dont race put there 2 bobs worth in. Mick, you should have thought about putting your post on here before you did it because up untill then no one had bought it up about someone being pinged for incorect travel and disqualified...I feel sorry for your rider as he is the one who got dis
So Vics and NSW'S are loosers and are wingging (is that the same as flying?) and VMXers who don't race are tossers and should be seen but not heard ????
and who is living in the darkages???? run it by me again plz
-
Slakewells first post was about the idea of writing to the MA. Anyway us southeners aint talking about club days, we are talking about our MA affiliated series that use's the MA's rule book.
Ditto in Qld
So why suggest its about clubdays ? Doh!
That's what we call them.. QVMX club days!
Well I dont know what you do in your state I only know that we have (vcm) has a series and that what its called.I dont think that I have ever raced a VMX clubday
There's your quote. You make out that your series ( that I'm not putting down) has the same status as a national event in that it's sanctioned and runs by the same rule book. Hello! So are club days.
Stuff going on about it with you as you are in a different library let alone on a different page than me.
I will call you out again as you won't say anything on your posts in another similar thread saying my bike didn't comply and I was a cheat. I say fork you and the shit box bike you ride! Next time I will front you face to face on the matter.
-
you guys crack me up ;D, :P
Have to agree some of you need to take a breath and get a fresh beer from the fridge.
I have to smile when someone thinks they know my motivation for broaching this topic. No I haven't just started this believe because of my Husky at the Nats I have always said that bikes should be legal in stock trim. Brad I know you were very busy at the Nats riding superbly but if you had the time to look at the bikes ridding Pre 78 you may have noticed that many of the mid pack punters would not have passed the tape measure as Nathan pointed out up until this year Nats no one gave a toss. This is not about trying to gain some type of advantage but simply to keep this great class free of bull shit finger pointing that has killed some classes. I would be happy to ride and own a 9" travel KTM 400 if I could find one.
IMO and it is just mine that now the can of worms has been opened at this year Nats the finger pointing will only get worse and the Mid pack guys will stop coming.
Nathan did not rightly point out that no one gave a toss up till now. I corrected him with the 2009 nationals where it all came to a head back then. People were unhappy about bikes that were raced at coffs back in 2007 and when a particular bike in the same trim was still running 'illegally' , said bike and others were protested and upheld. As also stated, it was heavily debated prior to these nationals again.
Also then the mid pack punters should be put on notice as well.
As I bought shocks specifically to be within the rules, I would have to buy a new set to be on a level playing field. That will certainly piss me off.
The travel was not the issue in 2009. Don't rewrite history...
One of the three successfully protested bikes might have had more than 9" of travel (and we'll never know for sure either way) - even if it did, it was because it had the wrong forks (from a later model bike) and not because it had stock forks with 3mm too much travel.
-
According to some you can only comment if you raced at the Aussie titles, fortunately i qualify.
I too would be pissed off if I had modified my bike to meet the 9 inch rule, then have have to purchase new shocks if the rule is scrapped, well i bought a whole bike class being a 77VB 360 Montesa.
The Montesa cost me a lot of money and i dont want to buy new shockers or modify the forks because
a ridiculous rule has been invented.
I simply want to race my bike as it was designed and raced in the day.
The VCM committee will lodge a rule amendment with MA, we don't expect the rule to change but will at least encourage discussion.
Rule amendment proposal, pretty much along the lines Pre 78 class - 75 to designated 77 models accepting period after market components.
In regards to after market components the bike owner will be obliged to prove components were available in the day.
-
According to some you can only comment if you raced at the Aussie titles, fortunately i qualify.
I too would be pissed off if I had modified my bike to meet the 9 inch rule, then have have to purchase new shocks if the rule is scrapped, well i bought a whole bike class being a 77VB 360 Montesa.
The Montesa cost me a lot of money and i dont want to buy new shockers or modify the forks because
a ridiculous rule has been invented.
I simply want to race my bike as it was designed and raced in the day.
The VCM committee will lodge a rule amendment with MA, we don't expect the rule to change but will at least encourage discussion.
Rule amendment proposal, pretty much along the lines Pre 78 class - 75 to designated 77 models accepting period after market components.
In regards to after market components the bike owner will be obliged to prove components were available in the day.
Are you making a list of aftermarket parts to submit or just leaving it open? I've got a Shinobi watercooled head i wouldn't mind using one day..
-
Are you making a list of aftermarket parts to submit or just leaving it open? I've got a Shinobi watercooled head i wouldn't mind using one day..
My humble opinion watercooled head would be eligable, A friend has a twin shock Honda RA125 water cooled Mugen just sitting around gathering dust, would love to see that bike running Evo class but sadly as per current rules eligable for pre 85
-
There's your quote. You make out that your series ( that I'm not putting down) has the same status as a national event in that it's sanctioned and runs by the same rule book. Hello! So are club days.
Hello Noddy , you now better quote where I said that because our series also runs by the MA rule book and is MA affiliated that makes it of equal staus of a National !!!!! but you can't because I didnt say that - it once again comes from your own little brain. Really Mate lots of people can read this shit , maybe you should start sniffing a different type of tile glue - its been too long.
" so are club days "
really Nobby ? So what you are saying is that the Mons is not just written for a oneday a year National event ? Interesting indeed ,I wonder if people who ride other events other than the "Nats" realize that ? NAR PROBABLY NOT ,THE RULE BOOK IS JUST FOR THE NATS ISNT IT? Wonder why the MA sent me a copy since I have chosen not to do the "Nats " thus far.I should do the right thing a call them ." Hello is that the MA? Yes I am calling to tell you to stop sending me those rule books , actually it was Noddy I mean Brad van borello's idea, you know the guy who wins lots of class's at the "Nats".You dont know him ? Oh well just don't send me those rules because I don't race the Nats I only race in our state series here .Ok ? Thanks have a niceday."
and they all lived happily everafter (in ozvmx forum land) ;)
-
Nathan, you're at your best when you are splitting hairs. Suspension was the issue with one bike straight up and was the subject of discussion years before. '09 it became official. No one had the balls to do it before that. The microscope has been on the class ever since. To say no one cared till now is 100% wrong, even just in regards to my bike being singled out back in '09 let alone all these types of threads that are heated debates regarding suspension amongst other things. There is no official mention of a 1978 bike that was raced at the same event. It was protested but a specific detail had to be protested eg swing arm and it was disqualified because of that, not because it was a 1978 model bike.
Poor old Brent, you lose sight of the whole discussion and what you are even talking about. The distinction between being laid back at club level as opposed to national level.
You and a fellow Vic talking about a lack of rule nazis at your 'series'. Same as a club day any where else. Yet completely different to a nationals as far as adhering to rules of suspension as well as other little things that are let go at club or 'series' level. Thats it. You need a political thread to really get your teeth into and go round in circles.
-
you guys crack me up ;D, :P
Was just thinkin that!! So i'm not currently racing but may do in the future, can someone tell me what sort of prize money is on offer at some of the events in dicussion here?? I'm thinking it must be a lot considering how stressed out some people are getting about rules and regs when it comes to riding some old bikes around for a bit of fun and nostalgia?? I'm pretty handy so maybe i'll even give up work and ride VMX full time, sounds like it could be a living?? ;)
-
sorry boys, I'm off to Cairns Barra fishing for 3 days, I'm sure we will be at the same point when I get back, maybe page 20 though ;D
the arguement is long dead. the rules are written for all, not some! so the rules should not be changed for some! leave pre 78 alone and just go race.
so long and thanks for all the fish ::)
cheers worms
-
Is this about Victorians and New South Welshman being a bunch of sore loosers?....they seen to be the only ones wingging....it always erks me too when you get the tossers that dont race put there 2 bobs worth in. The system works pretty good that we have, everybody that RACES has the same rule book to adhere too and it's pretty basic shit but theres always somebody that pushes the limits and when it turns to shit its not there fault....modern society= blame someone/thing else....it couldnt possibly be me...and then just keep arguing some invalid point untill you wear them down....sound familiar?..... You blokes need to get out of your dark, cold, dingey holes, come up to QLD (7 nil cockroaches) and race...we have a great time up here...2 awesome clubs...100's of happy punters....more race meetings than you could poke a stick at and get on with life. Mick, you should have thought about putting your post on here before you did it because up untill then no one had bought it up about someone being pinged for incorect travel and disqualified...I feel sorry for your rider as he is the one who got disqualified and its his name, not yours. Answer this...had your bike got away with it, would we be talking about this now......I think we all know the answer to that. The grids in the pre78 Nationals and how sucessful it was goes to show that where on a good thing.....another QLD inititive....you blokes would be still under your mushrooms if it wasnt for us....just follow us eh...learn from the best.
(http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh160/rosco400_photos/qlder.jpg)
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=762184 :D
-
:D :D :D Quasi Queenslander ! sounds like Joh's back
-
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=762184
WTF do people move to a different country and then feel they have to hang with people from where they came from in the first place ::)
The Whinging prick who started that thread should fluck off back if he doesn't like the people >:( 11 pages on weather another inch or too makes a difference when theres whining wankers like that living amongst you .
Send the buggers back send the buggers back their black i ordered white ones send the buggers back ;)
-
Is this about Victorians and New South Welshman being a bunch of sore loosers?....they seen to be the only ones wingging....it always erks me too when you get the tossers that dont race put there 2 bobs worth in. The system works pretty good that we have, everybody that RACES has the same rule book to adhere too and it's pretty basic shit but theres always somebody that pushes the limits and when it turns to shit its not there fault....modern society= blame someone/thing else....it couldnt possibly be me...and then just keep arguing some invalid point untill you wear them down....sound familiar?..... You blokes need to get out of your dark, cold, dingey holes, come up to QLD (7 nil cockroaches) and race...we have a great time up here...2 awesome clubs...100's of happy punters....more race meetings than you could poke a stick at and get on with life. Mick, you should have thought about putting your post on here before you did it because up untill then no one had bought it up about someone being pinged for incorect travel and disqualified...I feel sorry for your rider as he is the one who got disqualified and its his name, not yours. Answer this...had your bike got away with it, would we be talking about this now......I think we all know the answer to that. The grids in the pre78 Nationals and how sucessful it was goes to show that where on a good thing.....another QLD inititive....you blokes would be still under your mushrooms if it wasnt for us....just follow us eh...learn from the best.
(http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh160/rosco400_photos/qlder.jpg)
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=762184 :D
Ha ha I saw that one on foolsbook. You can have that one, that's all you got lol.
-
11 pages on weather another inch or too makes a difference
I checked with my wife and she indicated that another inch would be appreciated... ;)
-
247..you talkin a fatter shock or a longer shock or both.. ;)
-
I have no idea how all these "rule" type discussions always turn in to a state versus state, mate versus mate slanging match.
I don't believe the suggestion of a submission to look at perhaps altering the rules was one mans attempt to qualify his bike! It was all about NOT HAVING TO MODIFY A STANDARD BIKE. How the hell can riding a STANDARD BIKE be called cheating is all I am agreeing with!
And quoting here
" So Vics and NSW'S are loosers and are wingging (is that the same as flying?) and VMXers who don't race are tossers and should be seen but not heard ?
and who is living in the darkages? run it by me again plz"
I really do take offence at being called a looser because of where I live and a Tosser because I haven't raced the last couple of Nats! Pardon me for being injured.
Maybe if I was such a tosser I wouldn't have volunteered my time, money and bike to marshall while you "Racers" get to have all the fun! I really enjoy sitting out in the pissin rain or dust watching other people have fun........
If only we were all as good as you! Thanks for demonstrating just how tiny your mind really is and how much (very little) you appreciate people taking the time to try and better OUR sport. I bet you're the type who has to be somewhere "NOW" whenever YOUR club needs help?????
And I thought riding/racing old was meant to be for fun and not so full on?? I'm thinking that racing moderns isn't all that competitive afterall. I know when I was racing National enduro and MX series, there was none of this BS. Everyone was there for the fun of it and some guys (and girls) were faster than others.
Would it be a sin to suggest that those that are so serious about racing 30y/o bikes have a "PRO" only event where us "whingers" won't interfer in their sport!
Last time I looked, us "clubbies" make up the majority of all clubs......
-
Too right TBM . If myself and other woblers where not at the rear of the field who would be paying for the events other than the clubmen . And to the fast guys out there please remember that you only look fast because we are so slow . ;D Iain
-
Yeah Iain. Some people are just in it for the $5 trophies.....that us woblers help pay for. If only I was as fast as I remember I used to be. Then perhaps my opinion might carry as much cred as the fast guy now!
-
Yeah Iain. Some people are just in it for the $5 trophies.....that us woblers help pay for. If only I was as fast as I remember I used to be. Then perhaps my opinion might carry as much cred as the fast guy now!
I`ll second that comment, what fast guy`s.
-
Great points guys but this is all got nothing to do with the subject at all.
You have taken offence to a piss take to start with.
When has there ever been a meeting where the shit has hit the fan like it does here? Never!
I think I'm fairly articulate with my posts yet others just take part of what is said or don't read posts properly then the thread goes off on a bullshit tangent that has next to nothing to do with the original thread.
-
Poor old Brent, you lose sight of the whole discussion and what you are even talking about. The distinction between being laid back at club level as opposed to national level.
You and a fellow Vic talking about a lack of rule nazis at your 'series'. Same as a club day any where else. Yet completely different to a nationals as far as adhering to rules of suspension as well as other little things that are let go at club or 'series' level. Thats it. You need a political thread to really get your teeth into and go round in circles.
You as well as your constant misquoting ,rule Nazis this time,never had sight of the discussion you two headed dickhead( one isnt enough for you,probably since they are both so tiny).It doesnt matter if we are talking the Nats or the powder puff forking class the MA rule book applies to affiliated events and licenced riders .The riders that choose to ride the Nats are not prioritised over any other licensed rider .The original post of this topic was not a whinge but asked for opinions from fellow OZVMX members, you obviously have a problem with that ,with other VMX enthusiasts who dont race and with VMX racers who race in events oher than the Nats.What a sad case.
-
I think most were letting a sleeping thread lie but since you've woken it up let's get back to basics.
Is this a new rule? No. It's a foundation rule .
Why would such a rule have been out in place to limit a bike that is in standard trim?
Also, what is the thought process behind it?
And also, the same rule is in the foundation class being pre 75.
So why is it an issue now?
Would it be fair to at least think that the the one that started this thread and wants to submit a change of rule wants to now because his bike was disqualified? If it had slipped through the cracks, would he still have wanted to do this.
To me it's obvious why it's there. To bring the class closer together. So the '77 models don't have as much of an advantage over a 75 model. To get as many bikes into the class, so more bikes are competitive. Hardly a stupid rule.
On the other side of the coin, you just don't want to have to restrict the suspension from standard on your '77 model bike. So you have to weigh up if you feel it will be detrimental to the class as the rule makers thought.
-
Don't waste your time and energy Brad..it's not worth it
-
OH!! O!! braddles should always bother........its in his nature...
-
What about 2010 nationals at conondale? I don't give a toss about the forks, just playing the where does it stop card. I'm sure with all the accusations on here of cheater bikes, mine in particular, was a big reason why there was a major check of 'all' pre '78 bikes.
Dont know I missed he 2010 Nats at Conondale because I went to the 2010 Nats at Broadford instead . :P
-
Don't waste your time and energy Brad..it's not worth it
For sure. Took him two days to reply and came up with that illiterate garbage. I think that's half the problem, if you write like that then ones reading comprehension must be the same.
Here I am trying to have an intelligent discussion about what I thought was an important decision. My mistake.
-
well big "V" why do you get sucked into the vortex!!!! i don't subscribe to some of your policies but this has gone on long enough!!!! I FOR one don't give a HOOT about conformity,, because ther was none back then... build a bike!!!! if it gets thru scrutineering you ride,,, seems simple,, if not you rectify or go home!!! same as any factory team since rules started..if you got to race that meeting seems fate was on your side n the powers were to answer for not the ENTRANT!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
well big "V" why do you get sucked into the vortex!!!! i don't subscribe to some of your policies but this has gone on long enough!!!! I FOR one don't give a HOOT about conformity,, because ther was none back then... build a bike!!!! if it gets thru scrutineering you ride,,, seems simple,, if not you rectify or go home!!! same as any factory team since rules started..if you got to race that meeting seems fate was on your side n the powers were to answer for not the ENTRANT!!!!!!!!!!!!
EXACTLY!
All this crap about protests and the like are bloody ridiculous. I was at Conondale in '09 and even the Chief Eligibility Scrutineer put in a protest because he was beaten to 2nd place! Fair enough the protest was correct as far as I understand but how does a bike that passes scrutineering end up being not eligible???? I think this whole protest thing is getting out of hand.....and all for a $5 trophie! Yet not a single soul said anything about Glen Bell's '84 CR500 having upside down forks! WTF!
Even the protagonists on here have openly agreed that an extra inch of travel isn't going to make a bike/rider go that much faster. In many cases, it will hinder their cause.
Surely we (as a bunch of like minded riders) should be making things easy to get bums on seats. By asking everyone to go to the rule book everytime they buy a new bike is just plain ridiculous in my view. If the bike is stock and had the extra inch back in the day, so be it. No one complained or protested back then, they just raced and got on with it. Is it going to get the point where riders/owners of bikes are going to have to pull their bikes apart to prove they don't have modern valving or damping rods in their forks???? Disassemble engines to prove they don't have later model gearboxes? I bet the guys at front have the best of everything inside their forks, shocks and motors.....
-
If the cut off date had been pre 77 to 74, and pre 74 to pre70, everybody should be happy, 74 model YZB, could leave their shocks as they where., Bikes with lay down rear units could also be left
as they where back in 74, it only make sence.
I will say it again, the cut off dates need to be changed, I was not happy when we submitted them in the early 90`s.
-
well big "V" why do you get sucked into the vortex!!!! i don't subscribe to some of your policies but this has gone on long enough!!!! I FOR one don't give a HOOT about conformity,, because ther was none back then... build a bike!!!! if it gets thru scrutineering you ride,,, seems simple,, if not you rectify or go home!!! same as any factory team since rules started..if you got to race that meeting seems fate was on your side n the powers were to answer for not the ENTRANT!!!!!!!!!!!!
EXACTLY!
All this crap about protests and the like are bloody ridiculous. I was at Conondale in '09 and even the Chief Eligibility Scrutineer put in a protest because he was beaten to 2nd place! Fair enough the protest was correct as far as I understand but how does a bike that passes scrutineering end up being not eligible???? I think this whole protest thing is getting out of hand.....and all for a $5 trophie! Yet not a single soul said anything about Glen Bell's '84 CR500 having upside down forks! WTF!
Even the protagonists on here have openly agreed that an extra inch of travel isn't going to make a bike/rider go that much faster. In many cases, it will hinder their cause.
Surely we (as a bunch of like minded riders) should be making things easy to get bums on seats. By asking everyone to go to the rule book everytime they buy a new bike is just plain ridiculous in my view. If the bike is stock and had the extra inch back in the day, so be it. No one complained or protested back then, they just raced and got on with it. Is it going to get the point where riders/owners of bikes are going to have to pull their bikes apart to prove they don't have modern valving or damping rods in their forks???? Disassemble engines to prove they don't have later model gearboxes? I bet the guys at front have the best of everything inside their forks, shocks and motors.....
At the '94 Nats at Cherribah a rider was protested and disqualified for illegal front forks in pre '75. Nothings changed since then, it hasn't got any harder to build a legal race bike and rules are still rules and do get enforced. This year 1 rider got caught out with a bike that didn't comply, it's happened before and it'll happen again. The vmx world isn't going to cave in because of it..
-
If the cut off date had been pre 77 to 74, and pre 74 to pre70, everybody should be happy, 74 model YZB, could leave their shocks as they where., Bikes with lay down rear units could also be left
as they where back in 74, it only make sence.
I will say it again, the cut off dates need to be changed, I was not happy when we submitted them in the early 90`s.
That won't fix anything.. moving the cut off dates won't stop people cheating.
-
I would feel that it would stop the cheats, all bikes would end up being standard machines, the only modification would be, if a purchase twin shock had layed down units, in 1974 was the era when
most riders layed their units down, 76 Kawasaki would have had 1inch more travel, then that is a question mark, and that alone won`t help anybody to win races.
-
i'm actually quite surprised at how EASY it is to COMPLY with the rules we have for our sport.
i don't understand how people can complicate things or why they want to.
i do believe it is a choice.
the rule makers/enforcers have a difficult job as they'll always cop flack from someone somewhere.
my belief is that the way things are at present is good for the sport.
if we really want to confuse club days with national events then there'll be more protsets than we need and not enough eligibility scrutineers to cope with the situation.
some of the excuses people try on are quite humorous and these mostly come from folk that should know better.
it's ok to drive for a day to get to a race, so why can't that same person take a day to fix a problem.
-
i'm actually quite surprised at how EASY it is to COMPLY with the rules we have for our sport.
i don't understand how people can complicate things or why they want to.
i do believe it is a choice.
the rule makers/enforcers have a difficult job as they'll always cop flack from someone somewhere.
my belief is that the way things are at present is good for the sport.
if we really want to confuse club days with national events then there'll be more protsets than we need and not enough eligibility scrutineers to cope with the situation.
some of the excuses people try on are quite humorous and these mostly come from folk that should know better.
it's ok to drive for a day to get to a race, so why can't that same person take a day to fix a problem.
I do agree with you, but I am also strong about the cut off dates., their where long discussion about rules over months and nights, to submitt the format as it is today, as I can say there where heated moments at times. It would be very hard to change the concentuion now.
-
My wife would have liked an extra inch.
K
-
Im lov'n the retorts ,keep them coming, great way to waste a Sunday arvo.
Given that the rules ain't gunna change any time soon, it's a lot of hot air over nothing.
Craig got it right Brad, ain't worth the energy..... But it does bring a smile!
-
Hi,
wouldn't it be nice if everyone had spellcheck or maybe had a look at a dickshinairy, before they were allowed near a keyboard.
cheers
-
Hi,
wouldn't it be nice if everyone had spellcheck or maybe had a look at a dickshinairy, before they were allowed near a keyboard.
cheers
Damn, here's a first ;).....I couldn't agree with you more Michael.
-
I've put it down to cabin fever.
-
I put it down to the flu, that I am experiencing the last new days and getting worse. :'( :(
-
This is not correct, I protested an illegal machine that happened to be in the race I was in. To do so I withdrew from the event - The below suggests that the protest was because I was in second - I was in 4th. After the protest I lost and then appealed and won. That was the correct result. The results that matter dont show me in them at all.
Can I say that after 20+ nationals as Chief Scruiteer you are going to miss a few; some guys are cunning and "select" their time to push through and I have pretty much seen it all however when you have to look at 100s of machines and make a call your never going to know everything and never going to get it 100% right every time.
Tanner
All this crap about protests and the like are bloody ridiculous. I was at Conondale in '09 and even the Chief Eligibility Scrutineer put in a protest because he was beaten to 2nd place! Fair enough the protest was correct as far as I understand but how does a bike that passes scrutineering end up being not eligible???? I think this whole protest thing is getting out of hand.....and all for a $5 trophie! Yet not a single soul said anything about Glen Bell's '84 CR500 having upside down forks! WTF!
Even the protagonists on here have openly agreed that an extra inch of travel isn't going to make a bike/rider go that much faster. In many cases, it will hinder their cause.
Surely we (as a bunch of like minded riders) should be making things easy to get bums on seats. By asking everyone to go to the rule book everytime they buy a new bike is just plain ridiculous in my view. If the bike is stock and had the extra inch back in the day, so be it. No one complained or protested back then, they just raced and got on with it. Is it going to get the point where riders/owners of bikes are going to have to pull their bikes apart to prove they don't have modern valving or damping rods in their forks???? Disassemble engines to prove they don't have later model gearboxes? I bet the guys at front have the best of everything inside their forks, shocks and motors.....
[/quote]
-
more power to those that are prepared to uphold the integrity of the sport at a national level. Dont second guess yourself Dave for those who cant be bothered to display the courage to question the eligability of bikes, the rules and other attempts at flaunting them.
Cheers Worms
-
Number 1 with a bullet.
C'mon, 13 pages in one week, really?
You guy's need to take up Dirt Track, 99% of the issues raised aren't an issue.
That was a generalization because I don't have the time or the patience to read all 13 pages.
VMX has a lot to answere for I reckon. ;)
-
Number 1 with a bullet.
C'mon, 13 pages in one week, really?
You guy's need to take up Dirt Track, 99% of the issues raised aren't an issue.
That was a generalization because I don't have the time or the patience to read all 13 pages.
VMX has a lot to answere for I reckon. ;)
Speaking of dirt track.. I've never come across anything more ridiculous than the protest flag they now use at modern dirt tracks. Every couple of races some spoilt sook raises the protest flag at the end of the race cos he didn't like being beaten! What a load of shit! They need to watch a couple of AMA motocross races and harden up.
-
The purple flag is for ALL Junior disciplines
-
The purple flag is for ALL Junior disciplines
Nice way to bring the Juniors up...
-
Speaking of dirt track.. I've never come across anything more ridiculous than the protest flag they now use at modern dirt tracks. Every couple of races some spoilt sook raises the protest flag at the end of the race cos he didn't like being beaten! What a load of shit! They need to watch a couple of AMA motocross races and harden up.
I agree, it teaches the spoiled little pricks and their showbiz mums the easy way to get a trophy. They really do need to harden up.
-
Firko, since 1994 ,Ea and I have been the Starter, Announcer,Stewards, Clerks of Course or the Race Sec at a shitload of DT meetings at 5 different tracks and have never seen the Junior purple protest flag used at all.
Foss
-
Not that I wanted to get involved in this shitfight but surely the purple flag is also applicable to Junior MX?I alway's thought the flags were the same across all disciplines, there are more protests in Speedway than any other type of motorcycle racing, that's because any single illegal action can & most often does have an outcome on a race result, DT is pretty much the same, in MX you have more time to recover.
Does that answere the question.
I agree it isn't really teaching the kid's much but they rarely know the rules, but MUM & DAD surely do and I would say that 90% of the time that's who would be protesting.
-
I agree it isn't really teaching the kid's much but they rarely know the rules, but MUM & DAD surely do and I would say that 90% of the time that's who would be protesting.
Yep !!
-
I was at some dirt track meetings at Hatchers before it closed and the purple flag was up all the time.
There is no such thing as a purple flag in mx and i can't remember seeing a protest for years. A bit of bar banging is pretty normal in motocross but the dirt track juniors went for the flag every time there was a good close race.
-
Doesn't mean there all like that.
-
Doesn't mean there all like that.
I'd like to think they aren't..
-
Here in tas The purple flag in mx is for junior racing so they pick it up before they talk to there parents as mostly it's the parents who are not the happy ones it's take them out of the protest .Saying that in the 12yr i have been involved in junior racing i have never seen it used cheers George
-
Gee, this thread has gone from pre78 rule change to purple flags, whats next, bars banging in the pits, ???
-
Yep the purple flag is in use across all disciplines of junior competition here in NSW.
The thing to remember is that the flag can only be used by the junior competitor and can not be used once an adult has come in contact with the rider after the race. The flag is usually placed at the entrance to the pits.
I can say that I have only ever seen the flag used once in the last twenty years and that was at minikhana and was a dispute over the rider being fouled out in a bending event.
Seniors of course rarely use the protest system possibly because of the associated cost of doing so.
Maybe we can take some pocket money off the kids for unsuccessful protests ;D ;D ;D
Cheers
Shaun
-
There endeth the purple flag debate.
Hope that ankles going okay Shaun.
-
There endeth the purple flag debate.
Thanks SlideRulz and congrats on taking over the running of the website ::)
Of Course it wouldn't have been you who stirred it up in the first place by putting the shit into VMX would it ??? Na ::)
Quote slideRulz
"You guy's need to take up Dirt Track, 99% of the issues raised aren't an issue.
That was a generalization because I don't have the time or the patience to read all 13 pages.
VMX has a lot to answere for I reckon. " End quote
-
there was no barramundi in cairns, seeing as no-one asked how the fishing was ???
cheers worms
-
Nark.
-
How was the fishing Trev....are we dining on fish at the Conondale Classic?
-
there was no barramundi in cairns, seeing as no-one asked how the fishing was ???
cheers worms
Trev how was the fishing ;D we have only managed another 3 pages while you were gone :o
-
Yet not a single soul said anything about Glen Bell's '84 CR500 having upside down forks! WTF!
And the wavy discs and other modern odds and sods. The owner of that bike has been pushing the legality envelope from the day he entered the sport so it would have been fitting for someone to say something. I guess having one of the sports icons on board the bike made people think twice, not wanting to be seen as the person to protest Glenn Bell (who quite frankly would have won the class on an XR200).
-
How often does Glenn Bell come out to play the vintage, regardless the ineligible bike.
-
[quote (who quite frankly would have won the class on an XR200).
[/quote]
Thats the irony of it ::) Glen bell probably wasn't even aware that the bike he was riding didn't comply ??? and as you say firko the bloke could win on a postie bike ;D
Even with our relaxed rules over here we still have people who want to push the point , particulary in pre 86 ::)
-
How often does Glenn Bell come out to play the vintage, regardless the ineligible bike.
No your right Dave , we should make exeptions for former heros, perhaps Craig Dack can bring Josh Coppins current race bike to the Connondale classic for the legends race ::)
-
Was the bike Belly rode really illegal though? Upside down WP forks were available in '84...
-
first off, the fishing was terrible, the guide was a tourist-con and he wasnt a fishermans ar--hole, unprepared and an arrogant prick.
as for Glens bike, perfectly legal.
-
as for Glens bike, perfectly legal.
Probably, maybe ::) ) I didn't comment at the time because I'm not so up on pre 85 bikes but to me it didn't look right. Why does the owner of the bike always push the legality on his stuff by putting ugly out of era shit on it like wave discs and those sorta legal USD forks*? He's been doing it since the early 90's, in fact he was the bloke that Johnny O mentioned earlier that got pinged with dodgy forks on his CR125 at the '94 Cherabah Nats.
* Not wanting to raise the legality or ilegality of USD WP forks which was argued out quite strongly on here a while ago.
-
it was a bike prepared for Glen, and its not worth the debate.
I catch more fish of Straddie and I wont be going back to cairns as its overated, hot and bloody humid, even in winter, it might as well be in Victoria ;D
and no Davey, there will be no fish, just worms, at the Classic and cant believe I'm not in the pro class ::)
Cheers Worms
-
it was a bike prepared for Glen,and its not worth the debate.
Just because the bike was prepped for Glen Bell doesn't make it exempt from the rules everyone else had to abide by. That bike was over the top, like all of Geoff Holmes bikes.
-
your absolutely right Firko, but nobody protested the bike, it was passed and raced, thats my point.
cheers worms,
-
There's some excellent guide's around cairns ,sounds like you didnt get one ! july "can be" a tough month even with a fairdinkum guide with water temps at there lowest of the year (< 24 deg) :( there's alway next trip worms :D
-
your absolutely right Firko, but nobody protested the bike, it was passed and raced, thats my point.
cheers worms,
Is this opening another can of worms .. worms ;D??
-
no! thats it for me Simo, there's enough worms in this topic to take us right thru to the next Nationals, where there will be tears again.
so long and thanks for all the fish
Worms has left the building! or topic
-
Yeah good luck with that :-\
-
Do you want me to put you in the Pro class Trev?.
-
There endeth the purple flag debate.
Hope that ankles going okay Shaun.
Thanks Steve. Did it no favours by standing on the hill all day Sunday. But wouldn't have missed it for quids. What an awesome days racing. Just needed a few more sliders eh ;D
How did your leg pull up?
Cheers
Shaun
-
no Davey, far out, I'm last on most race days ;D
cheers worms
-
Was the bike Belly rode really illegal though? Upside down WP forks were available in '84...
I'm not so sure that even WP had upside down forks in 1984. I don't recall the KTM's of the era having USD's and WP is KTM's fork as we all know.
The Honda Factory bikes didn't get upside down forks until 1987 so therefore Bells ride was illegal. And yes, the irony of it all is that Glen could win on a postie bike. Rules are rules. One in, all in. Regardless of whom you are or what you achieved in the past. I'm not labeling Glen as knowing his ride was illegal either.
Maybe the scrutineers will have an easier time of determining eligibility of a bike now that the Pre78 split has been proven a success. When all is said and done, it's a big ask of a scrutineer to be expected to know all the workings of all generations of bikes from the 60's to the 90's. Perhaps MA should look at providing a scrutineer for each era of bike at National level events to take some of the pressure off of the scrutineers????
-
Bell's CR500 at the '09 Nationals had Simons USDs. There was some idle speculation that they were not a pre-85 model of Simons USDs, but I have NFI about them.
WP 4054s first came out as a production part in 1983, FWIW. Bahnzy started a thread on the legality of the various models of 4054s a while back. I _think_ the conclusion was that all pre-89 versions were close enough for pre-85, but the likely issue was the brake mounting point (disc vs drum).
-
Both Simons and WP had upside down forks available to the public in 1984, just because the factory Hondas weren't running them til later doesn't mean anything.
Brad Lackey won the 82 world title with Simons upside down forks.
-
The wave disc seemed all wrong but it seems to be about as illegal as fat bars.
If I had my way i would ban both.
The forks, while rareish were around in the day.
(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a393/gmcloa/Misc%20bike%20stuff/WP-catalog-1.jpg)
(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a393/gmcloa/Misc%20bike%20stuff/WP-catalog-2.jpg)
-
Good work Geoff, that sorts that issue out..
-
Gee. If I had a spare 20 odd G I could have a set on my 250 L.... :-[
-
Gee. If I had a spare 20 odd G I could have a set on my 250 L.... :-[
Where did you pull a figure of 20 G from?
They can be had for under $ 400.00 ;D
(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a393/gmcloa/Misc%20bike%20stuff/WP-catalog-3.jpg)
(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a393/gmcloa/Misc%20bike%20stuff/WP-catalog-4.jpg)
-
Yeah I know that's over the top. I do remember someone asking that much for a set however... :'(
-
Was the bike Belly rode really illegal though? Upside down WP forks were available in '84...
I'm not so sure that even WP had upside down forks in 1984. I don't recall the KTM's of the era having USD's and WP is KTM's fork as we all know.
The Honda Factory bikes didn't get upside down forks until 1987 so therefore Bells ride was illegal. And yes, the irony of it all is that Glen could win on a postie bike. Rules are rules. One in, all in. Regardless of whom you are or what you achieved in the past. I'm not labeling Glen as knowing his ride was illegal either.
Maybe the scrutineers will have an easier time of determining eligibility of a bike now that the Pre78 split has been proven a success. When all is said and done, it's a big ask of a scrutineer to be expected to know all the workings of all generations of bikes from the 60's to the 90's. Perhaps MA should look at providing a scrutineer for each era of bike at National level events to take some of the pressure off of the scrutineers????
gee mate you keep shooting from the hip. A few facts wouldnt go astray. This is how people are called cheats and it sticks, like it seems to have from last time Glens name was bought up. White power forks, legal. Wave disc, debatable but legal.
-
So the legal drum brake WP4054's are still legal when modified to take a disc wheel?
K
-
.... Glens name was bought up. White power forks, legal.
(http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r236/Tomez1/DSCF7151.jpg)
-
.... Glens name was bought up. White power forks, legal.
(http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r236/Tomez1/DSCF7151.jpg)
No question about legality.. Lackey used the prototypes in '82 and you could buy them over the counter in '84!
-
Late last year a racer fronted up to the starting line right beside me on an 84 honda
just like Glens ride, soo bein the curious bastard that i am i started to have a quck
look over his bike before the gate drops.
Straight away i noticed that the disk and wheel were from a later model CR (disk had slots not holes and
the wheel was goldy coloured and i presume the forks were off the same model bike, just guessing
maybe 86 or 87. But do i give 2 hoots about using later model parts in the pre 85 class noo stinkin way
couldnt give a rats..
Im thinkin the reason he maybe using them is cause the originals might be stuffed ???
Anyway it all boils down to one thing and that is we are not racing for sheep stations hey guys.. :)
-
.... Glens name was bought up. White power forks, legal.
(http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r236/Tomez1/DSCF7151.jpg)
Oops. Good one Nathan.
-
Could you buy Woodstock bourbon in 1984? Maybe the stickers are not period correct.... ;D ha ha
-
And you no what the latest mod is if you own a pre 89 bike thats doin the rounds.
Shoehorning a whole front end off a current model 2010-2012 and slippin it straight
into your CR KX 250-500 ???
But thats opening up a whole new can of WORMS...
-
Late last year a racer fronted up to the starting line right beside me on an 84 honda
just like Glens ride, soo bein the curious bastard that i am i started to have a quck
look over his bike before the gate drops.
Straight away i noticed that the disk and wheel were from a later model CR (disk had slots not holes and
the wheel was goldy coloured and i presume the forks were off the same model bike, just guessing
maybe 86 or 87. But do i give 2 hoots about using later model parts in the pre 85 class noo stinkin way
couldnt give a rats..
Im thinkin the reason he maybe using them is cause the originals might be stuffed ???
Anyway it all boils down to one thing and that is we are not racing for sheep stations hey guys.. :)
I totally agree with what you're saying. It's one of the good things about the RetroMX stuff - no rule-book warriors.
But because we're on the internet... :D :
Wheel rims are not "major components" and can be replaced with later parts.
Brake rotors are apparently the same.
'86/87/88/89 CR RWU cartridge forks are dead easy to pick compared to the earlier non-cartridge parts. I don't know enough about the differences between '84, 85 and 86 non-cartridge forks to comment there - maybe the '86 CR125 forks are a carry-over part?!
-
May be he just used later model parts to make the bike look trick, and thats the way he likes it, Its similiar to those people that put later era rims on pre 75 bikes and alloy wingarms to make the bike look trick and cool, gee don`t forget the hot later design pipes on 74 model husqvarna 250 mags, with 75 - 76 radial finned head, that wheren`t around in 74, and scrutineers let them through, WOW, its not what you know, its who you know, on race day. ::) 8)
-
May be he just used later model parts to make the bike look trick, and thats the way he liked it, Its similiar to those people that put later era rims on pre 75 bikes and alloy wingarms to make the bike look trick and cool, gee don`t forget the hot later design pipes on 74 model husqvarna 250 mags, with 75 - 76 radial finned head, that wheren`t around in 74, and scrutineers let them through, WOW, its not what you know, its who you know, on race day. ::) 8)
yep and its the National Titles where they'll get pinged.We cant expect every new member to know the very rule on every aspect of the era's at club level.just like the scrutineer at the Nats,some get past the loop hole.Take it or leave it too the Nats ! :P
-
yEP, Clubs should guide the new comers ??? in the right direction on the rule book for vintage , on the classes and era they are planning to run in, I think the rule book explans the rules well, very easy and common sense. ;)
-
WHAT! is VMX now kindergarden, how much more presure do want on committees? FFS , it's real easy, dont ride if you cant make the effort or a least try to understand your sport.
get a rule book and read it, it's not that fu--king hard.
have a nice day, Worms
-
Trevor with all due respect I don't go along with this view point on the 78 bikes. It is not about understanding your sport it is about the enjoyment of running in the sport is it not?
I do not see why a bloke that has a period correct bike should have to alter it the conform with with a bike that is not competitive. Remember vintage racing (in general) is about the bikes and not the rider. I was at best a mid pack C grader in my day and I can asure you if I was on my 2010 CRF 450 I would not have been able to beat Brad (090) on his pre 78 bike, end of story.
But I was riding (well tried too) a 76 CR 250 that by the rules is limited in its ability due to the fact it has short suspension. What people did it the day was to change the suspension points on the rear to aid travel but by the very same rule book this is not allowed (18.5.5.2 Front wheel travel will not exceed 229mm (9 inches) rear wheel travel will be limited to 229mm (9 inches) measured at the axle. Rear shock absorbers will be in the original position using the original mounting points) this is taken from the current MA rule book.
Look so Why limit this bike??? we could have (and did) in the day change suspension points but no one has bought that up. If you want to win a nats and the bike of choice is a RM250 then go out and buy one win the thing and be happy with yourself, if you are like the other 30 riders in the race and want to run a bike you had in the day or dreamed of owning I am sure I know who will be getting the best enjoyment.
Like all things in life things from time to time they may need to be review and maybe it is time for this rule (class rules) to be reviewed. I do, however go along with the premise that if you go to a championship meeting the bike should be legal (under the current rules) and if not then it should be excluded (before the event would be better and not after the running). After all we all need to live by rules.
As for the new topic on this post re the bike Glenn Bell was riding it should be pointed out it is not Glenn's bike and the person who does own the bike has some very special bikes and are all first rate. I have spoken to him about the forks and yes they are period correct. It is one of the reasons he does not usually run at "Nats" because of all the B.S. that goes with it.
I would think we have a lot more problems in vintage racing (cancellation of the post vintage nats for one!!) that need attention then some of the dribble this topic has seen.
-
question - and nothing more - no opinion and not wanting to get shot. But if my old mind remembers rightly MA upheld a protest in the recent past saying that just because a part was available to the factory in a particualrly era (pick one) doesn't mean it is legal - therefore the comments about prototype forks being available to Lackey etc but not Joe Blogs should be wrong as an OK to use them no?
-
great response Shane, I guess my point is, no matter what rules are in place they will be debated.
the rules can be made easier to understand,
the pre 78 rule is a pain in the arse for non competitive riders, if a bike was made in an era and raced that way, that should be the end of it.
I agree with both sides of the arguement, except everyone must agree with me ;)
cheers Worms, now I'm going riding.
-
some good points of view both ways,at the end of the day it mostly effects the nats not club days? May be as the nats are ignored things will change?
-
I have spoken to him about the forks and yes they are period correct. It is one of the reasons he does not usually run at "Nats" because of all the B.S. that goes with it.
Aw shucks, so the sensitive little pup doesn't race the Nats because of the bullshit involved? Over the last 20 plus years I've observed Geoff Holmes bikes both up close and from the sidelines and while I'm the first to admit that his bikes are lovely looking bits of kit and very well constructed, they also test the rulebook and the poor bugger appointed by MA to adjudicate on their legality. I have no problem with Geoff as a person, in fact I find him a nice bloke but I do have to ask why he seems to always have to test (and often exceed) the boundaries of legality with many of his bikes.
I witnessed the scenario leading up to his Honda CR125's disqualification at the '94(?) Cherabah Nats and to this day still scratch my head as to why, after the bike passing scrutineering with legal forks fitted, he changed to an illegal set of forks in front of many witnesses including myself and his main opposition in the class, the man who would eventually submit a successful protest. I also remember the CR450 engined Honda RZ250 Geoff presented for Evo when it was crystal clear by the rules that the bike wasn't kosher.
As someone who relishes building trick bikes myself I can well understand his enthusiasm in building bikes using the trickest components available during the racing period the bike represents. I just don't understand why he and others go past those limitations and then complain about "all the B.S. that goes with it (The Nats). when "the bullshit" is there to prevent racers crossing the legality guidelines.
-
question - and nothing more - no opinion and not wanting to get shot. But if my old mind remembers rightly MA upheld a protest in the recent past saying that just because a part was available to the factory in a particualrly era (pick one) doesn't mean it is legal - therefore the comments about prototype forks being available to Lackey etc but not Joe Blogs should be wrong as an OK to use them no?
Did you read my whole post or just selective bits? I'll say it again, Simons upside down forks were available to the general public in 1984
-
WHAT! is VMX now kindergarden, how much more presure do want on committees? FFS , it's real easy, dont ride if you cant make the effort or a least try to understand your sport.
get a rule book and read it, it's not that fu--king hard.
have a nice day, Worms
totally agree,though other club members also need to step up to the plate and help out.
Hopefully while not getting penalised/demoralised while doing so,while having the knowledge available to the newbee's.Whom may have never riden a vintage bike or not thrown there leg over one for 30 odd year.
Its as fine as fishing line this politics ;D
A percentage of people dont know the rule book or MA even exist.
cheers
-
There I can't agree with you VMX247 , When you get your licence the rule book comes with it . (Officer I didn't know it 40k's I didn't read the limit signs ) Iain
-
Sadly that is the case Alison, but I agree totally with you that well-meaning club members should take the newbies who turn up bright-eyed and keen to re-live their youthful endeavours running on a one-event licence aside, and patiently run them through chapter 18 of the MoMS and outline what's required if they intend to get more involved.
Historic roadracing in particular is littered with tales of blokes who have knocked up an old weapon, turned up on spec to discover they or their bike don't fit within the rule stucture, and drive off cursing, vowing never to return. As a result, every time I hear of someone getting keen to build something, I implore them to read the rule book before they cut or weld anything. Likewise, there's nothing wrong with having a first-timer roll up to a club meeting with an out-of-period-rule bike and allowing them a tryout day, but they should be firmly but politely guided down the correct path should they wish to continue to get involved.
As for race riders not being familiar with the MoMS, there's no excuse for anybody not to have sat down for an hour or so and familiarise themselves with the rules of their chosen sport/hobby/pastime/passion. ;)
-
JO - settle petal - as I said simple question asked about comments made with regards some works bits - if they are available in the time I think they are OK - but I believe (and this was the point of my question and was just using your comment as a prompt) that if factory does not necessrily mean they are MA compliant - not questioning your statement - not that stupid? But people can't just go "because they were on a Honda works bike in 84 means.........................."
-
There I can't agree with you VMX247 , When you get your licence the rule book comes with it . (Officer I didn't know it 40k's I didn't read the limit signs ) Iain
I must enquire as to why I didn't get one with my M.A. licence last month.
Pancho.
-
JO - settle petal - as I said simple question asked about comments made with regards some works bits - if they are available in the time I think they are OK - but I believe (and this was the point of my question and was just using your comment as a prompt) that if factory does not necessrily mean they are MA compliant - not questioning your statement - not that stupid? But people can't just go "because they were on a Honda works bike in 84 means.........................."
No worries Ross I'd agree with that..
-
Steel my thunder, forum memebers. when Peter Drakeford was scrutineering at national meeting, he was so on the ball, and stopped a lot of cheaters, and people hated him, we need people like that
who stands up to these people, if the bike is not right on the day, take it away and fix it, come back when its right. its not rocket science. ;)
-
when Peter Drakeford was scrutineering at national meeting, he was so on the ball, and stopped a lot of cheaters, and people hated him, we need people like that
I should put my hand up for the job.... :D
-
There I can't agree with you VMX247 , When you get your licence the rule book comes with it . (Officer I didn't know it 40k's I didn't read the limit signs ) Iain
I must enquire as to why I didn't get one with my M.A. licence last month.
Pancho.
Ive always got one when Ive renewed my lic Pancho . Its a shock to look at them on the book shelf all most 17 years of them in 1995 they only had 176 pages total 2011 ,277 pages and 9 pages on vintage moto cross . 1 and a 1/4 pages in 1995 's book . and that was under the heading of historic .
-
There I can't agree with you VMX247 , When you get your licence the rule book comes with it . (Officer I didn't know it 40k's I didn't read the limit signs ) Iain
here in the west u only get the moms/gcr when they first publish them and for a competition licence or offical.in other words the newbee has to basically ask for a copy.which they dont know exists.
Its a shock to look at them on the book shelf all most 17 years of them
That's hoarding ;) ;D
-
How much does Auz MCU charge for a licence? and they cant afford a copy of the rules! Are they on there web site?
-
Was peter scrutineer on your 4 stroke 125?
-
Was peter scrutineer on your 4 stroke 125?
Boom Tisssh ;D
-
Bazza, if your referring to my Australian Title winning machine, it was 20 % bike and 80 % me, doing the damage against those Elsinores, zundapps, and the 1975 Suzuki, in the over 40`s 125, and yes drakeford was scrutineering that day, but you would never pick it, it fooled me, just goes to show what a match we where, MAN AND MACHINE. ;D
-
How much does Auz MCU charge for a licence?
in west aust.$280 for a yearly comp.A oneday comp event $45 club/interclub only.$85 for annual recreational licence.20$ for oneday recrational licence. On subject the gcr book will not tell you the lenght of the swingarm or shockies.it will tell you the amount of axle travel. oh yes and True words GD66 8)
-
Bazza, if your referring to my Australian Title winning machine, it was 20 % bike and 80 % me, doing the damage against those Elsinores, zundapps, and the 1975 Suzuki, in the over 40`s 125, and yes drakeford was scrutineering that day, but you would never pick it, it fooled me, just goes to show what a match we where, MAN AND MACHINE. Grin
There's no doubt you rode that Maico/Honda really well Dave but to say that it would never have been picked is a bit rich. Bazza, myself and a few others spotted that it had an XL185 or XR200 engine in fading light at dusk on Saturday, with at least half a dozen beers up. Drakey should have spotted it at Saturday mornings scrutineering but it it goes to show that even the experts can miss stuff.
-
Yes, you are right, with my comment, I was just playing around, my point is, being a scrutineer on the day, it is with the best interest of the sport ,to have scrutineers that know what they are looking at in each model, makes and era, I feel that there should be at least 4 Knowledgible scrutineers within the era they know on the day.
-
Yes, you are right, with my comment, I was just playing around, my point is, being a scrutineer on the day, it is with the best interest of the sport ,to have scrutineers that know what they are looking at in each model, makes and era, I feel that there should be at least 4 Knowledgible scrutineers within the era they know on the day.
my god you talk some crap.
-
Is that the best you can say mainline, tell us your thoughts, instead of criticizing others.
A person that puts himself on the line to scrutineer a machine, should know what he is looking at when doing the job, its not only about checking spokes and handlebars.
-
Is that the best you can say mainline, tell us your thoughts, instead of criticizing others.
A person that puts himself on the line to scrutineer a machine, should know what he is looking at when doing the job, its not only about checking spokes and handlebars.
No, it's exactly what the volunteers who give up their time at each race meet are supposed to do. They are there to make sure that the machine presented to them is safe to ride under the regulations, and using their own common sense. They aren't there to check every detail of each and every machine as it passes through scrutineering for eligibility for the class it's entered in.
-
That may well be the case, and I do agree with what you are saying, my comments are directed towards National level vintage race meeting, Australian Vintage Titles where the riders are racing for a titles, not club level trophies.
-
That may well be the case, and I do agree with what you are saying, my comments are directed towards National level vintage race meeting, Australian Vintage Titles where the riders are racing for a titles, not club level trophies.
So you'd be quite happy with 3 days of in-depth scrutineering/eligibilty checks, and then 3 days of racing?
-
No, I am not saying that, the Australian Titles vintage meeting started off as a easter weekend, which gave the scrutineers time to check the bikes, and that was done on a friday and saturday.
It may be a good idea to follow the same method as the historic road racing, by using a log book, a machine examination book, once the bike has been check once, and its completely
eligible and unchanged and documented, it shouldn`t need to be check until its due again, when the due date has been stamped. and if it has been change for what ever reasons, then it will be band
for a period of ????.
-
i thought the debate was regarding 1" of extra travel on some bikes and the definitions required for pre78.
at the moment we have scrutineers looking at standard bikes,as manufactured and year correct and saying not legal. wouldnt it be better for scrutineers to be looking at modified bikes first, if its pre 78, its pre 78. if you have mods then it's up to you to prove their period correct, I souldnt have to prove Ive modified my bike from standard to fit a class as the rule stands.
Cheers Worms
come on 20
-
i thought the debate was regarding 1" of extra travel on some bikes and the definitions required for pre78.
at the moment we have scrutineers looking at standard bikes,as manufactured and year correct and saying not legal. wouldnt it be better for scrutineers to be looking at modified bikes first, if its pre 78, its pre 78. if you have mods then it's up to you to prove their period correct, I souldnt have to prove Ive modified my bike from standard to fit a class as the rule stands.
Cheers Worms
come on 20
Actually, I wasn't debating anything. I was merely making the point that he of the ever changing forum name talks a lot of crap.
I don't really care one way or the other about the rules as they stand, but as many have pointed out, if you don't like them then put in a submission to have them changed. Talking about it on here does nothing.
-
Was the bike Belly rode really illegal though? Upside down WP forks were available in '84...
I'm not so sure that even WP had upside down forks in 1984. I don't recall the KTM's of the era having USD's and WP is KTM's fork as we all know.
The Honda Factory bikes didn't get upside down forks until 1987 so therefore Bells ride was illegal. And yes, the irony of it all is that Glen could win on a postie bike. Rules are rules. One in, all in. Regardless of whom you are or what you achieved in the past. I'm not labeling Glen as knowing his ride was illegal either.
Maybe the scrutineers will have an easier time of determining eligibility of a bike now that the Pre78 split has been proven a success. When all is said and done, it's a big ask of a scrutineer to be expected to know all the workings of all generations of bikes from the 60's to the 90's. Perhaps MA should look at providing a scrutineer for each era of bike at National level events to take some of the pressure off of the scrutineers????
gee mate you keep shooting from the hip. A few facts wouldnt go astray. This is how people are called cheats and it sticks, like it seems to have from last time Glens name was bought up. White power forks, legal. Wave disc, debatable but legal.
Ok, it seems I was wrong about USD forks not being available in 1984.... Know I now! I did say I wasn't sure......and I sure as hell didn't call anyone a cheat. I just questioned the eligibility of a bike
-
i thought the debate was regarding 1" of extra travel on some bikes and the definitions required for pre78.
at the moment we have scrutineers looking at standard bikes,as manufactured and year correct and saying not legal. wouldnt it be better for scrutineers to be looking at modified bikes first, if its pre 78, its pre 78. if you have mods then it's up to you to prove their period correct, I souldnt have to prove Ive modified my bike from standard to fit a class as the rule stands.
Cheers Worms
come on 20
Now that we are kinda back on track with the whole extra inch of travel thing, throughout this whole discussion there have been several comments about bikes always being modified. Factories and privateers have always tried to improve their bikes.
I'm in the process of building a C&J Framed XL350 that was apparently manufactured in 1976. All I had was the frame. I purchased a 1976 XL350 so I could build a pre78 4stroke racer. Now after reading all this I wonder if I'm going to be able to ride it. It had no swingarm so I'm using a stock '76 XL 350 arm for now. It had no forks either so I found set of PE forks that are 38mm with 8 1/4 inch travel. I'd much rather have the original 37mm Showa fork but where do I find them and what would they cost? I'm going to use a set of Marzochii MX580 piggy back shocks and the wheel travel is spot on at 8 1/4" also. Hopefully I can graft the Honda front hub onto the KYB fork otherwise it will be Suzuki. Rear wheel will be XL Honda.
Is this bike going to be legal to race or is it going to end up like a lot of exotic / specials and end up being a lounge queen?
-
What part of the bike do you think won't fit the criteria? I would think a read of the rules and a check list will see you through.
-
What part of the bike do you think won't fit the criteria? I would think a read of the rules and a check list will see you through.
I'm no expert when it comes to C&J stuff Brad, I just love 4 stroke Hondas! I'm jus a bit concerned that because there are so few around someone will complain! I know the wheel travel, fork dimensions etc are all within the rules but it's definitely no stock XL350 anymore. I'm making it to look like the 1976 Factory XL305 Honda that Marty Tripes campaigned for a bit. At the end of the day I doubt I'll be winning much but I could very well be at the pointy end and I'd hate to be labeled a cheat just because I've built another bike to make the start lines.
I've still got My Beeza B50 for pre75 but my back is screaming for more suspension!
-
If you put era correct parts on it and suspension is within the limits then it's job done....
-
That's exactly what I thought Brad. Everything is pre78 so there should be no problems. As a matter of fact I'm well within travel limits and I'm fairly certain the forks are from a 77 PE250. They have a taper on the legs that sits between the triple clamps which is totally different to the later model PE's. Hopefully I can find an original C&J box section swing arm. I may be onto one hopefully.....
-
Was the bike Belly rode really illegal though? Upside down WP forks were available in '84...
I'm not so sure that even WP had upside down forks in 1984. I don't recall the KTM's of the era having USD's and WP is KTM's fork as we all know.
The Honda Factory bikes didn't get upside down forks until 1987 so therefore Bells ride was illegal. And yes, the irony of it all is that Glen could win on a postie bike. Rules are rules. One in, all in. Regardless of whom you are or what you achieved in the past. I'm not labeling Glen as knowing his ride was illegal either.
wrong on all counts - usd WP's were on 84 on some 84 KTM's not that it matters as Bell's Honda CR500 ran Simons forks of which disc brake versions were sold in 84 -to suit the Honda's. Factory Honda's had USD'd before 87........
-
At the end of the day, if you follow the guide lines as laid out, the chances of you having a problem are minute.
The problems that we all discuss pretty much come from individuals trying to stretch the boundary's.
Mind you, that is part of the racing culture.