OzVMX Forum
Clubroom => General Discussion => Topic started by: Montynut on February 02, 2013, 08:12:45 am
-
A couple of issues
1) The MOMS indicates that externally the appearance of engine and gearbox must be unaltered. How does this fit with all the bling bits such as billet goodies fitted to bikes such as ignition and clutch covers (which are supposed to be stronger and seal better, I guess) or other visible performance increases like larger modern reed blocks.
2) There no longer seems to be an allowance in the MOMS for replicas major components such as frames in any of the ERAs. Have I missed it? When did it disappear?
-
Or foot pegs big enough they wouldn't look out of place on a Harley Road King
-
Ted footpegs are not considered major components and in any case they need to be made folding on the older bikes purely on safety grounds.
-
A couple of issues
1) The MOMS indicates that externally the appearance of engine and gearbox must be unaltered. How does this fit with all the bling bits such as billet goodies fitted to bikes such as ignition and clutch covers (which are supposed to be stronger and seal better, I guess) or other visible performance increases like larger modern reed blocks.
2) There no longer seems to be an allowance in the MOMS for replicas major components such as frames in any of the ERAs. Have I missed it? When did it disappear?
Again common sense should prevail. I would interpret it as a part that is not of the period e.g. later model which enhances the performance. Bling doesn't do that so...
-
I would interpret it as a part that is not of the period e.g. later model which enhances the performance. Bling doesn't do that so...
???
So we're accepting obviously out-of-period stuff, while not accepting bits that were made a year or two after the cut-off?
How is a CNC'd, anodised ignition cover on a YZ125A OK, if a stock cover off a YZ125C or X not?
-
Yea, its funny like that Nathan, I asked Dave T a few years ago if I could put a YZ125C clutch cover on my 125A and he said no....fark, it was only to add "bling" as Brad said....no performance advantage at all and I thought with all the bastardised 125C/X's out there adding a clutch cover to the list wouldnt offend anyone new.
-
The 'unaltered appearance' rule is almost impossible to enforce and needs to be reworded or better still, removed sooner than later. I've had DT2MX clutch and ignition covers on my pre 70 DT1 for years with no complaints, what about all of the aftermarket heads and clutch and ignition covers? What about the Wheelsmith cutaway fin conversion on Maicos, CCM fin conversions on BSA B50's & B44's...yada yada yada....the list goes on.
The rule was originally included to ensure that bikes wouldn't be radically changed so much as to lose their period identity but after a year or two it was realised that the paragraph wasn't needed. With the exception of my knocking back a '74 Mag Husky that had a 76 radial head fitted (more because the owner was a tosser who wanted to argue the point than because his bike offended me), I can't recall this rule spoiling too many racers fun over the previous 24 years.
-
I would interpret it as a part that is not of the period e.g. later model which enhances the performance. Bling doesn't do that so...
???
So we're accepting obviously out-of-period stuff, while not accepting bits that were made a year or two after the cut-off?
How is a CNC'd, anodised ignition cover on a YZ125A OK, if a stock cover off a YZ125C or X not?
Well to start with there is no 'we're accepting'. This is my interpretation. Second of all I know I can wheel my Maico to the line with nearly every conceivable bling part on it and be legal. I would then have to assume that a later model part/s are not, which is ( IMO) why it was written in the first place.
-
I would then have to assume that a later model part/s are not, which is ( IMO) why it was written in the first place.
correct sir......see my earlier reference to the Husky, that was what the rule was set up for but it's not worded correctly.
-
Hmmm so, if someone changes an original 4 speed box to a 5 speed,would anyone know and is that cheating ???
-
No externally the same
"Visually Indistiguishable".
-
A couple of issues
1) The MOMS indicates that externally the appearance of engine and gearbox must be unaltered. How does this fit with all the bling bits such as billet goodies fitted to bikes such as ignition and clutch covers (which are supposed to be stronger and seal better, I guess) or other visible performance increases like larger modern reed blocks.
2) There no longer seems to be an allowance in the MOMS for replicas major components such as frames in any of the ERAs. Have I missed it? When did it disappear?
1) reading that rule in conjunction with acceptable machines and components rule, I would interpret that no "bling" manufactured after the cut off date is allowed.
2) There is for pre 60 and 65 "frames of any manufacture are acceptable within the suspension critera and considerate of the era."
-
1) reading that rule in conjunction with acceptable machines and components rule, I would interpret that no "bling" manufactured after the cut off date is allowed.
2) There is for pre 60 and 65 "frames of any manufacture are acceptable within the suspension critera and considerate of the era."
1) That was my reading of it as well. Why is a billet ignition cover for example bling when it could give a performance advantage in muddy conditions as it seals better or billet component being stronger than a cast item. Most 'bling' items have their appeal based on the perception of improved performance.
2) The rule 18.5.1.1 & 15.5.2.1 about the "frame of any manufacture" states machines and components manufactured before 1960 or 65. There should be a general rule in the Classic MX and DT setting the guidelines for replicas and I am sure that there was at one time otherwise how can a frame built in 2013 be acceptable. I am not saying they shouldn't be accepted but the rules don't seem to allow them as they presently stand. Considerate of the ERA is also very wide open and lose allowing almost any interpretation.
The current rules except for the EVO section specifically state when the machine and major components must be manufactured. Am I missing something? I know people can say the intent is this or that but sometimes the rule is literal this seems to be one of them. Otherwise why have any rules at all. The issue of replicas needs to be covered.
-
Possible addition
18.5.9 Replicas and reproductions of machines or major components are allowable in all eras. The replicas or reproductions but must be true to the original in all significant details such as geometry (in the case of frames and swing arms), fit and function. They must satisfy all requirements of the applicable era rules with the exception of manufacture date. The replicas and reproductions must be visually comparable to the original when in use. Manufacturing techniques and materials may vary from the original components.
-
Thats well worded Montynut .
-
1) That was my reading of it as well. Why is a billet ignition cover for example bling when it could give a performance advantage in muddy conditions as it seals better or billet component being stronger than a cast item. Most 'bling' items have their appeal based on the perception of improved performance.
I must say that this is a stretch at best to suit your argument about billet parts having an advantage. The billet parts on my Maico are purely cosmetic. So many times so many people have had a bitch about the 'OEM' tag yet it's still there. So as it gets said every time this and other similar threads start up about baddy worded rules or incorrect ones for e.g. rm 'b' alloy arms. If you have an issue with it, go through the proper channels and get it changed.
-
1) reading that rule in conjunction with acceptable machines and components rule, I would interpret that no "bling" manufactured after the cut off date is allowed.
2) There is for pre 60 and 65 "frames of any manufacture are acceptable within the suspension critera and considerate of the era."
1) That was my reading of it as well. Why is a billet ignition cover for example bling when it could give a performance advantage in muddy conditions as it seals better or billet component being stronger than a cast item. Most 'bling' items have their appeal based on the perception of improved performance.
2) The rule 18.5.1.1 & 15.5.2.1 about the "frame of any manufacture" states machines and components manufactured before 1960 or 65. There should be a general rule in the Classic MX and DT setting the guidelines for replicas and I am sure that there was at one time otherwise how can a frame built in 2013 be acceptable. I am not saying they shouldn't be accepted but the rules don't seem to allow them as they presently stand. Considerate of the ERA is also very wide open and lose allowing almost any interpretation.
The current rules except for the EVO section specifically state when the machine and major components must be manufactured. Am I missing something? I know people can say the intent is this or that but sometimes the rule is literal this seems to be one of them. Otherwise why have any rules at all. The issue of replicas needs to be covered.
1) I would assume later era or aftermarket components are outlawed because they DO give an advantage, which could potentially alter the outcome of results. The example of a billet ignition cover in muddy conditions is one of those.
2) Lots of laws are open to interpretation, it's up to the defendant (bike owner) to convince the judge (steward) there interpretation is right. Your not missing anything it's there in black and white, it's just that no one protests against the rule breach, so there in.
Possible addition
18.5.9 Replicas and reproductions of machines or major components are allowable in all eras. The replicas or reproductions but must be true to the original in all significant details such as geometry (in the case of frames and swing arms), fit and function. They must satisfy all requirements of the applicable era rules with the exception of manufacture date. The replicas and reproductions must be visually comparable to the original when in use. Manufacturing techniques and materials may vary from the original components.
Define "Major" components.
It contradicts itself a bit when it states "must be true to the original in all significant details" and "must be visually comparable to the original", but "materials may vary from original components." So I can build a replica swingarm for a flexy pre 75 bike that looks the same, but is made out of carbon fibre/aluminium composite and still be ok?
See how rule can be intrepreted differently?
-
So as it gets said every time this and other similar threads start up about baddy worded rules or incorrect ones for e.g. rm 'b' alloy arms. If you have an issue with it, go through the proper channels and get it changed.
Good point, Brad.
http://www.ma.org.au/index.php?id=138
-
I would interpret it as a part that is not of the period e.g. later model which enhances the performance. Bling doesn't do that so...
???
So we're accepting obviously out-of-period stuff, while not accepting bits that were made a year or two after the cut-off?
How is a CNC'd, anodised ignition cover on a YZ125A OK, if a stock cover off a YZ125C or X not?
In 1974 it was possible to machine a billet ignition cover for a YZ125a, it wasn't possible to fit a YZc ignition cover.. It's not rocket science
-
1) That was my reading of it as well. Why is a billet ignition cover for example bling when it could give a performance advantage in muddy conditions as it seals better or billet component being stronger than a cast item. Most 'bling' items have their appeal based on the perception of improved performance.
I must say that this is a stretch at best to suit your argument about billet parts having an advantage. The billet parts on my Maico are purely cosmetic. So many times so many people have had a bitch about the 'OEM' tag yet it's still there. So as it gets said every time this and other similar threads start up about baddy worded rules or incorrect ones for e.g. rm 'b' alloy arms. If you have an issue with it, go through the proper channels and get it changed.
Brad I am not sure what you think is my objective I have no problems with your bikes OK
-
I never thought of it like that ::) but yep spot on John :)
-
Possible addition
18.5.9 Replicas and reproductions of machines or major components are allowable in all eras. The replicas or reproductions but must be true to the original in all significant details such as geometry (in the case of frames and swing arms), fit and function. They must satisfy all requirements of the applicable era rules with the exception of manufacture date. The replicas and reproductions must an exact copy with no variants.
-
Now that my alloy B arm is polished I will call it a cosmeticly enhanced billet B arm offering no performance gains...how can they refuse that ;)
-
I sometimes think you guys have got too much time on your hands if your studying the rule book, but it does seem that every year we find a new set of hurdles.
2) The rule 18.5.1.1 & 15.5.2.1 about the "frame of any manufacture" states machines and components manufactured before 1960 or 65. There should be a general rule in the Classic MX and DT setting the guidelines for replicas and I am sure that there was at one time otherwise how can a frame built in 2013 be acceptable. I am not saying they shouldn't be accepted but the rules don't seem to allow them as they presently stand. Considerate of the ERA is also very wide open and lose allowing almost any interpretation.
The rule book states for both pre 60 & pre 65..
“Frames of any manufacture are acceptable within the suspension criteria and considerate of the era.”
This is a new rule, brought in I thought last year.
It sounds a bit loose but I believe its intention is to allow ‘copies’ of home made frames and the like that would have been around in the day but there is no real proof that they existed.
“considerate of the era.” Means you can’t make your frame look like a 74 Maico but if it looks like a Greeves, BSA, (or cheap Chinese Metisse!!) etc then you should be okay.
I believe this is a positive move to encourage bikes into these early classes.
2) There no longer seems to be an allowance in the MOMS for replicas major components such as frames in any of the ERAs. Have I missed it? When did it disappear?
Damned if I know, my 09 book states…
18.6.0.2
All major components must have been manufactured within the period, or be replicas of components manufactured within the period,
Define "Major" components.
It contradicts itself a bit when it states "must be true to the original in all significant details" and "must be visually comparable to the original", but "materials may vary from original components." So I can build a replica swingarm for a flexy pre 75 bike that looks the same, but is made out of carbon fibre/aluminium composite and still be ok?
See how rule can be intrepreted differently?
A composite swingarm?
If someone can make one look the same as a standard arm then I say go for it.
I have built Cro-Mo swingarms that look the same as originals that have won Aussie titles, because they look the same no one has cared / noticed.
The classic Road race section has this, I reckon we should have something similar…
16.4.0.7 Major components are:
a) All engine and gearbox external castings,
b) Frames,
c) Swingarms,
d) Brakes,
e) Forks and fork yokes.
16.4.0.8 All other components shall be considered as minor components.
16.4.0.9 Major components that were manufactured outside a specific period, but which are visually indistinguishable from period components shall be eligible for that period.
16.4.0.10 Modifications to major components are allowed, providing such modifications are visually indistinguishable from modifications proven to have been used in the period.
16.4.0.12 Minor components may be modified or updated, provided that they remain visually compatible with the period being depicted.
16.4.0.7 Major components are:
a) All engine and gearbox external castings,
b) Frames,
c) Swingarms,
d) Brakes,
e) Forks and fork yokes.
16.4.0.8 All other components shall be considered as minor components.
16.4.0.9 Major components that were manufactured outside a specific period, but which are visually indistinguishable from period components shall be eligible for that period.
16.4.0.10 Modifications to major components are allowed, providing such modifications are visually indistinguishable from modifications proven to have been used in the period.
-
Hi,
Can everyone get hold of a 2013 edition of the GCRs or Manual of Motorcycle Sports (MOMs)and have a good read , stop using rules from your 2009 rule book , the rules are being updated and improved continually,
cheers
-
I would interpret it as a part that is not of the period e.g. later model which enhances the performance. Bling doesn't do that so...
???
So we're accepting obviously out-of-period stuff, while not accepting bits that were made a year or two after the cut-off?
How is a CNC'd, anodised ignition cover on a YZ125A OK, if a stock cover off a YZ125C or X not?
In 1974 it was possible to machine a billet ignition cover for a YZ125a, it wasn't possible to fit a YZc ignition cover.. It's not rocket science
Theoretically, it was possible to build upside down forks in 1974........does that mean they would be acceptable?
unrealstic example I know, but thats how the current rule book is worded.
-
1) That was my reading of it as well. Why is a billet ignition cover for example bling when it could give a performance advantage in muddy conditions as it seals better or billet component being stronger than a cast item. Most 'bling' items have their appeal based on the perception of improved performance.
I must say that this is a stretch at best to suit your argument about billet parts having an advantage. The billet parts on my Maico are purely cosmetic. So many times so many people have had a bitch about the 'OEM' tag yet it's still there. So as it gets said every time this and other similar threads start up about baddy worded rules or incorrect ones for e.g. rm 'b' alloy arms. If you have an issue with it, go through the proper channels and get it changed.
Brad I am not sure what you think is my objective I have no problems with your bikes OK
I'm not thinking it's a personal attack if that's what you mean. I was merely using my bike as an example. I'm actually worried you think I'm chasing you around the forum which isn't so.
Theoretically, it was possible to build upside down forks in 1974........does that mean they would be acceptable?
unrealstic example I know, but thats how the current rule book is worded.
That makes no sense at all. It was possible to build a 2013 crf450 too.
-
Theoretically, it was possible to build upside down forks in 1974........does that mean they would be acceptable?
unrealstic example I know, but thats how the current rule book is worded.
That makes no sense at all. It was possible to build a 2013 crf450 too.
[/quote]
I know it's a ridiculous example, but Johnny O made the comment that a billet ignition cover made in 2013 is legal because it could be manufactured in 1974, my point was that you can't discriminate between components anymore, and that a set of upsidedown forks would be legal also using his theory, because they to could have been built in 1974...theoretically.
-
Theoretically, it was possible to build upside down forks in 1974........does that mean they would be acceptable?
unrealstic example I know, but thats how the current rule book is worded.
That makes no sense at all. It was possible to build a 2013 crf450 too.
I know it's a ridiculous example, but Johnny O made the comment that a billet ignition cover made in 2013 is legal because it could be manufactured in 1974, my point was that you can't discriminate between components anymore, and that a set of upsidedown forks would be legal also using his theory, because they to could have been built in 1974...theoretically.
[/quote]What a load of crap.. Hand made engine covers were around in the early 70's, upside down forks came out in 1982. Be realistic!
-
stop using rules from your 2009 rule book , the rules are being updated and improved continually,
cheers
I’m aware that the rules have changed since the 09 book, that’s why I quoted from the 09 book so I could point out that it used to be different.
Why would they remove that paragraph from the book?
Are replica frames no longer accepted?
I had trouble selling my CZ / CMS replica frames in Aust. when I first started making them, people told me they decided against them because they couldn’t be bothered with the eligibility dramas.
CMS frames were added to the book in the 90’s but now they are removed and now any talk of replica frames has been removed.
Changes should be making things clearer not making them more mystifying.
My 07 book also says that “Number of gear ratios shall remain as per original model specification”
But that was removed by the 09 book.
So I can now graft a 2000 model 6 speed box into my CZ 125??
-
Theoretically, it was possible to build upside down forks in 1974........does that mean they would be acceptable?
unrealstic example I know, but thats how the current rule book is worded.
That makes no sense at all. It was possible to build a 2013 crf450 too.
I know it's a ridiculous example, but Johnny O made the comment that a billet ignition cover made in 2013 is legal because it could be manufactured in 1974, my point was that you can't discriminate between components anymore, and that a set of upsidedown forks would be legal also using his theory, because they to could have been built in 1974...theoretically.
What a load of crap.. Hand made engine covers were around in the early 70's, upside down forks came out in 1982. Be realistic!
[/quote]
It's not crap!
You first said it was possible to make them in 1974...you then said they were being made in 1974.
Which one is it?
Under the 2013 rule book if a billet ignition cover was made in 1974 (by DG for example)then it's legal for pre '75 rule, If one was made in 2013 (by GMC for example) then it's not. As I said you can't discriminate between components anymore.
Who made billet ignition covers in 1974?
For the record I couldn't give a flying f#$k who runs what on their bikes, the thread was started asking a question about a specific rule in the MOMS, to which I gave my answer, if you can find a rule that allows the ignition cover (or any other non period component). What's the number?
-
Any chance the general consensus is that billet parts to bling a bike up are accepted but later model parts are not?
-
You could cast up an ignition cover in 1974 too.
People were running cast works/aftermarket covers in the day, they weren't running billet covers with the rider's name & race number machined into them.
As Evo550 said, there's not much modern mechanical stuff that couldn't be replicated using technology that was (theoretically) available in 1974.
But hey, the rules are perfect... ::)
-
Some of you clowns need a rule book 6" thick with every possible scenario listed just so you can't pick holes in the rules.
FFS go for a ride or build a bike and put your brain power towards something usefull..!
-
LOL ... :-X
-
It's pretty simple really, build your bike using major components available during the period the bike is raced or replicas of those parts and you can't go wrong. I think the "the technology to build a 'woftam moderater valve*' was available in 1974 so we should be allowed to use them" argument is a crock of shit. If you can find a photo of a 'woftam moderator valve'* in use prior to 1975 well go right ahead and use it, if you can't, it's illegal. That's my stance on Karl Landrus swingarms (amongst other dubious so called "replica" parts)....his LOP and other replica arms are just fine but his generic rectangular tube alloy swingarms for Evo/pre 90 and pre 75 monoshocks are illegal because they are not replicas of anything available back in the bikes particular era. Use common sense and you won't even need the bloody MoMs to build a bike ;).
*before some doobie actually asks what it is, it's a bullshit, made up component. ::)
-
Some of you clowns need a rule book 6" thick with every possible scenario listed just so you can't pick holes in the rules.
FFS go for a ride or build a bike and put your brain power towards something usefull..!
Come on mate, posts like that are just a shit stir, if you don't like these "rule book" threads then don't join in. Montynut asked a legit question, no point in calling the people who are trying to answer it, clowns..
-
I think the big bonus with racing dirt bikes is that the ability of the rider is a huge percentage component of the speed of the bike. Unlike road racing or drag racing where the performance of the bike is critical, our scene is more about how good the rider is. I'm not arguing that it doesn't matter what we do with our bikes, just that it is not the game changer that it could be in a different type of racing. I think if we go with the idea that a pre85 bike should be set up in a way that was possible in 1984 (as an example) is our guideline, we can't go wrong.
Cheers, Grahame
-
Some of you clowns need a rule book 6" thick with every possible scenario listed just so you can't pick holes in the rules.
FFS go for a ride or build a bike and put your brain power towards something usefull..!
Come on mate, posts like that are just a shit stir, if you don't like these "rule book" threads then don't join in. Montynut asked a legit question, no point in calling the people who are trying to answer it, clowns..
It was getting way off track.. You're right, I shouldn't have joined in
-
I think we have pretty much done it to a stand still now. It is pretty obvious the old hands are operating on the 'past practices' position which is fair and reasonable. The problem is that the rules are not clear to a new person coming into the sport. The rules will always have some grey but we seem to have more grey in a couple of areas than black and white. It is clear that 99% of competitors know what is required so that is the main issue.
I don't want a 6" rule book in fact I am a true believer in the KISS principle. The rules were amended significantly a couple of years ago and removed a lot of the problems. The changes were well thought out and simplified things a lot. I think a few things are still to be clarified which was the reason for my questions.
I am going to submit some suggestions for consideration via the normal channels. The guys on the MA committee are doing a great job in a difficult and thankless position and I know my past submissions have been considered fully and fairly.
-
Some of you clowns need a rule book 6" thick with every possible scenario listed just so you can't pick holes in the rules.
FFS go for a ride or build a bike and put your brain power towards something usefull..!
Come on mate, posts like that are just a shit stir, if you don't like these "rule book" threads then don't join in. Montynut asked a legit question, no point in calling the people who are trying to answer it, clowns..
It was getting way off track.. You're right, I shouldn't have joined in
It's all good, funny thing was my young fella and I went for a quick Sunday arvo trail ride, and I only read that post when I got home. ;)
-
I think the big bonus with racing dirt bikes is that the ability of the rider is a huge percentage component of the speed of the bike. Unlike road racing or drag racing where the performance of the bike is critical, our scene is more about how good the rider is. I'm not arguing that it doesn't matter what we do with our bikes, just that it is not the game changer that it could be in a different type of racing. I think if we go with the idea that a pre85 bike should be set up in a way that was possible in 1984 (as an example) is our guideline, we can't go wrong.
Cheers, Grahame
Mick Doohan might argue that point
-
I think the big bonus with racing dirt bikes is that the ability of the rider is a huge percentage component of the speed of the bike. Unlike road racing or drag racing where the performance of the bike is critical, our scene is more about how good the rider is. I'm not arguing that it doesn't matter what we do with our bikes, just that it is not the game changer that it could be in a different type of racing. I think if we go with the idea that a pre85 bike should be set up in a way that was possible in 1984 (as an example) is our guideline, we can't go wrong.
Cheers, Grahame
Mick Doohan might argue that point
Casey Stoner would probably agree with Mick.
-
So would Valen...wait sorry no he wouldn't ;D
-
None of those blokes are particularly noted for their talents as dirt bike racers?!
...the big bonus with racing dirt bikes is that the ability of the rider is a huge percentage component of the speed of the bike. Unlike road racing or drag racing where the performance of the bike is critical, our scene is more about how good the rider is.
;)
-
None of those blokes are particularly noted for their talents as dirt bike racers?!
...the big bonus with racing dirt bikes is that the ability of the rider is a huge percentage component of the speed of the bike. Unlike road racing or drag racing where the performance of the bike is critical, our scene is more about how good the rider is.
;)
i think both Doohan and Stoner grew up dirttracking ?
but either way, having spent the last 20 years road racing i'd aggree that MX'ing doesn't require anyware near the amount of bike set up
-
I think this will be a never ending topic.
The vast majority of our leading International riders did their apprenticeship on OZ DT, riding very different track surfaces and in all conditions, that's the big bonus we have over the rest of the world.
-
Hey Firko - here is one for you. Whilst you are correct that a KLP YZB swingarm is illegal here the swingarm for the same bike is OK in the states because of the 74/75 distribution of bikes - I mean that there were swingarms for these in 75 in the States but because they are then post 75 are not OK here.
-
None of those blokes are particularly noted for their talents as dirt bike racers?!
Casey won over 40 national and 70 state dirt track titles as a wee feller.....
-
Is this "let's misinterpret everything day" or something?
;D
In this thread on OzVMX, we're talking about Messers Stoner and Doohan's dirt track careers (the newest of which ended 13 years/half his lifetime ago!), as though it has relevance to the point about dirt bike races being less dependant on machinery and more on rider skill.
It's an interesting enough topic by itself, but Jebus... ::)
-
As you go up the totem pole of riders, the better riders require more from the machine, even a machine a simple as a speedway bike, a world class rider would fuss over things the average rider wouldn't consider important.
-
Thanks Lozza because that is the essence of what Speedway is about.
4 lap's, 60 sec of racing means that bike setup couldn't be more important.
The little things I saw some of the top riders of the 80's fuss over often made me wonder, WHY.
When you look at their overall results you got your answere.
-
As you go up the totem pole of riders, the better riders require more from the machine, even a machine a simple as a speedway bike, a world class rider would fuss over things the average rider wouldn't consider important.
One of the best quotes on this forum,
For those who just don,t know
Casey 41 times OZ Junior Champion,
In his KTM days he raced a Dirttrack at Barleigh Ranch on a stock bike and was closely beaten into second, by the current Australian Champion on his setup bike, 2 days after Caseys bike came out of the box, Harvesta has photos,
2 weeks of practice I would put my house on him to beat anyone,
Heads turn throttles he has one of the best, ask the guys that have raced him one on one,
Even riding trials he is amazing,
-
People may want to think about this, taken from 2013 manual of motorcycle sport:
12.10 SOUND EMISSIONS - ALL DISCIPLINES
NOTE: From 1/7/2013 sound testing must be
carried out at all permitted events however it is
not mandatory to test all machines
12.10.1 Specifications
12.10.1.1 Sound emissions are set out in the
tables below:
30 meters (from side of track) ride by test
DISCIPLINE LIMIT dB(A)
Road Racing 95
Historic Road Racing 95
Classic MX & Dirt Track 95
Speedway (including Quads) 95
Dirt Track & Track (incl. Quads) 95
Record Attempts No limit
12.10.2 Use of sound level meters
12.10.2.1 Sound testing apparatus must:
a) Comply with international standard
IEC 651, Type 1 or Type 2.
b) Include a compatible calibrator, which
must be used immediately before
testing begins and always just prior to
a re-test if a disciplinary sanction may
be imposed.
12.10.2.2 Sound testing apparatus must be set to:
a) ‘Fast response’
b) ‘A’ weighted,
c) Select range High 80~130 dB,
e) Activate the function MAX MIN -
set on MAX,
12.10.2.3 ‘30 Meter ride by’ test
a) The sound levels will be measured
with the sound meter/microphone
fixed on a tripod, in the horizontal
position, 30 meters from the edge
of the track at a high speed point.
Cheers
Kim ;)