OzVMX Forum
Clubroom => Competition => Topic started by: Ted on October 28, 2013, 06:27:32 pm
-
If I was to buy a RN or RA Suzuki works bike would it be eligible to ride at the Aussie Titles.
-
Same as in the day Ted,
only if you can show us some/any level of sponsorship,
just go down to your local Zukkie dealer and tell them how good you are,
and what ever you do, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story ::)
-
That would probably depend on whether it fits within the class rules and getting it past the officials if it doesn't... Can of worms
-
RH's have been raced at title events before haven't they??
-
I only ask because I was told that you cannot use any parts that weren't available to the public. So seeing as these bikes were built in their eras and some are available to purchase why couldn't someone buy one and compete on it. A guy in our club still competes on a semi factory bike that he used in the 70's.
-
RH's have been raced at title events before haven't they??
Geoff i think the RHs and RN that have been raced at titles upto now have been limited production L and M models and fit into pre 75 / pre 78 legally .
Of course if you unearthed a real factory 74 RH or RN hmmmmmmmmmm depending on the suspension travel ( lets not forget they were improving every week ) you may have to limit the travel :-\
Was there such a thing as a 1974 RA 125 ? i have seen a pic of Akira Watanabe on what looks like a prototype RM 125 M winning the 1974 Japanese championship . I assume this was an RA ? Gastons 75 RA 125 was very different to an RM 125S much more like an RM 125A , but that was raced in 75 so would slot into pre 78 i assume.
Good thread :)
-
Dave used to race his RH in pre 75 all the time. I think he raced the Nats on it.
-
(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i180/mutchoo/DSC_0174_zps5e4efcad.jpg) (http://s72.photobucket.com/user/mutchoo/media/DSC_0174_zps5e4efcad.jpg.html)
Dave T at last years event on his RH 250 ( rider # 211)
-
So was a RH 250 available for sale to the public or just sponsored riders?
-
Depended on the shop selling them i think
-
So was a RH 250 available for sale to the public or just sponsored riders?
The 74 was allocated only to sponsored riders and the 75 was available in limited numbers to the public, i have one of each and they both comply with pre 74 and pre 78 rules.
A better example would be a 79 watercooled twin shock RA125 or Hannah's 77 watercooled OW125, what classed would they run in?
-
So what class is the RH250 pictured above in. Looks Pre 75
-
X pre 75 250
-
And I was just about to pass the fat bugger. ;D
-
So a bike that was not available to the public is OK to ride at the Nats.
As evidenced in the above photo.
-
And I was just about to pass the fat bugger. ;D
What I wanna know Joan, is WTF were you doing behind him in the first place ;D ;D
-
Yes you would be able to race the bike.
-
So a bike that was not available to the public is OK to ride at the Nats.
As evidenced in the above photo.
Only if the lugs on the swingarm are factory welded. :o
-
So we have ascertained these bikes were not available to the public , only supported riders and are fine to race.
Well how does somebody from the Classic Dirt Commission justify these comments he made :
" The few bikes I seen with them parts on it were all ridden by fully supported riders, so were they only available to selected riders "
" you need to prove it was genuinely available to all riders. Gunters bike most probably had Pre production parts on it supplied by Suzuki, the same as Galls Yamaha and several other top riders. And if that is the case it is not legal"
-
So a bike that was not available to the public is OK to ride at the Nats.
As evidenced in the above photo.
Only if the lugs on the swingarm are factory welded. :o
You are a welder aren't you Mick. You have a look and tell me when it was welded. The welds are identical.
-
Sadly Daves RH had a gearbox giggle last year, but the AJS wasnt a giggle at all. Hope Dave is riding this year, surely last year taxed all his bad luck.
-
So a bike that was not available to the public is OK to ride at the Nats.
As evidenced in the above photo.
If a works bike fits the criteria then it's all good. What you really want to know as JohnnyO eluded, if a works bike has parts not allowed as in water cooling in pre 78 or Evo. That is the big question. As far as I can see the answer is no by the rules in place. A factory works bike being ridden at a nationals is an extremely small issue. I'm pretty sure there hasn't been a works bike at any of the national events I've been to.
Sounds a little bit like a barrow being pushed ???
-
(http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m605/Husky500evo/79NoyceHondain91_zps0d796913.jpg)
Apparently Graham Noyce turned up and rode his '79 World Championship winning RC500 Honda (that Honda gave to him after he won the title), at vintage meetings in England, until he sold it to a private collector. This picture was supposedly taken in 1991 at a vintage meeting. I'm not sure if he would get away with it here in Australia , but it meets the Evo class rules by being all O.E.M Honda.
-
You can't use the poms as an eg. Mark.
They cut up single shock bikes for Evo. That bike fits their 'rules' easily.
-
So a bike that was not available to the public is OK to ride at the Nats.
As evidenced in the above photo.
It fits within the rules.. Its a semi works bike, If it was Roger DeCosters real 74 RN400 with 8 inches suspension travel front and rear then NO it wouldn't be OK.
-
No barrow here Brad. I was told by a representative from the Commission that unless it was available to the public it's illegal. However the one man that can approve these parts can ride a whole bike that was not available to the public.
This isn't about suspension travel it is about availability to the public.
Hypocrisy
-
A genuine 'factory' race bike would not be eligible as it was not available to purchase in the day. The RH/RNs that are on the market from time to time were not factory bikes but limited production bikes available on application and were purchased by the owner/entrant still the most desirerable of all Suzuki bikes. There was an RH250 in my town in '74/'75. These bikes are still well short of the factory bikes ridden in GPs. This has been covered several times before.
While the '74 RH/RN were very restricted in numbers and who had one they were still purchased and stayed with the purchaser when retired from racing. They were limited production racers I can remember a few people waiting almost a year for delivery of the YZ250/360B first mono which was also a very limited production run from memory.
Why would you want to thrash a 60-80K bike made of unobtainium around for a classic title and risk wiping 75% off its value by blowing the engine to bits or flattening a pipe etc etc
-
I was told by a representative from the Commission that unless it was available to the public it's illegal.
That isn't a written rule and is just one mans take on it
-
A genuine 'factory' race bike would not be eligible as it was not available to purchase in the day. The RH/RNs that are on the market from time to time were not factory bikes but limited production bikes available on application and were purchased by the owner/entrant still the most desirerable of all Suzuki bikes. There was an RH250 in my town in '74/'75. These bikes are still well short of the factory bikes ridden in GPs. This has been covered several times before.
While the '74 RH/RN were very restricted in numbers and who had one they were still purchased and stayed with the purchaser when retired from racing. They were limited production racers I can remember a few people waiting almost a year for delivery of the YZ250/360B first mono which was also a very limited production run from memory.
Why would you want to thrash a 60-80K bike made of unobtainium around for a classic title and risk wiping 75% off its value by blowing the engine to bits or flattening a pipe etc etc
Because that's what it was made for!!!!!!
-
A genuine 'factory' race bike would not be eligible as it was not available to purchase in the day. The RH/RNs that are on the market from time to time were not factory bikes but limited production bikes available on application and were purchased by the owner/entrant still the most desirerable of all Suzuki bikes. There was an RH250 in my town in '74/'75. These bikes are still well short of the factory bikes ridden in GPs. This has been covered several times before.
While the '74 RH/RN were very restricted in numbers and who had one they were still purchased and stayed with the purchaser when retired from racing. They were limited production racers I can remember a few people waiting almost a year for delivery of the YZ250/360B first mono which was also a very limited production run from memory.
Why would you want to thrash a 60-80K bike made of unobtainium around for a classic title and risk wiping 75% off its value by blowing the engine to bits or flattening a pipe etc etc
Price of any bike is only relevant to how many lawns you've mowed
-
I have a friend that was sponsored locally by Yamaha in 1974 (or '75 ?) on an OW12, (I think it was one of the first Yamahas with a monoshock) 250 works bike. They took it back at the end of the year and probably sent it back to Japan to be crushed. He is currently looking to buy an OW12, as a reminder of his his youth. If he manages to buy one , it will probably never get ridden, but where would he stand if he turned up to race it a vintage race meeting in Australia ?
-
If he makes the rules he can do what he wants.....that's what it seems
-
OW12 would fit into pre78.
-
OW12 is Factory and also Pre Production ( used to evaluate future models ) right
And is OK for Pre 78?
-
Dave Tanner and Andre Matheson have raced RH and RN suzukis in vmx going back 20 years.. Why Is it suddenly a problem? And that was long before Dave was an official of any kind...
Nothing on TV tonight?
-
No problem. They can ride what they like in my opinion.
-
There was a RN400 in the 2010 titles at Broadford..
-
My comment on price has nothing to do with the reason full factory bikes being eligible or not just an observation. Still maintain that something that was not available to purchase by the general public does not meeting our rules or the spirit of the rules. The RH/RN Suzukis that were raced by Jens Olsen, Worrell etc etc were limited production races not factory bikes. Jens still has his most of his.
An example of the limited production nature of these bikes are many of the the parst used. A Heaven Club member that has an '74 RN400 had a clutch problem. A person in the know provided him with Suzuki part numbers for replacement plates they were T500 road bike clutch plates! Limited production is not like an unobtainium 'Factory' GP bike.
-
let me get this straight if steve gall turned up at the nats this year with a brace of his works bikes you guys would tell him to piss off.(wankers) he would beat you all on a xr75.so are you now going to tell firko he cant ride his factory shell 750 yamaha dirt tracker. he has one you know and so do a few other guys in oz. same rules vmx/vdt. get the bikes out on the track not in garages or pool rooms.skill wins races not best bike. if it was around in the period ie pre65 to evo get it out on the track if the owner wants to.
brad you have good riding skills do you think a mid packer will beat you on a works bike i dont think so
jim
just my 2 cents
-
Until someone turns up to race a 'real' works bike we don't really have a problem.
Gally doesn't have any works bikes either..
-
let me get this straight if steve gall turned up at the nats this year with a brace of his works bikes you guys would tell him to piss off.(wankers) he would beat you all on a xr75.so are you now going to tell firko he cant ride his factory shell 750 yamaha dirt tracker. he has one you know and so do a few other guys in oz. same rules vmx/vdt. get the bikes out on the track not in garages or pool rooms.skill wins races not best bike. if it was around in the period ie pre65 to evo get it out on the track if the owner wants to.
brad you have good riding skills do you think a mid packer will beat you on a works bike i dont think so
jim
just my 2 cents
You've prob got a lot more friends here than I have so I'll suspect this being put forward by yourself won't receive half the bashing I've copped for it in the past ::)
My thoughts exactly though ;)
-
friend of mine was protested at the nats for having a part on his bike which was period correct but "works" and therefore not available to the public - the protest was upheld. I am looking at an OW top end for my YZB - does it mean I can't use it at the Nats?
-
Strange thread with no light at the end of the tunnel
How long is a piece of string?
-
I would like to think if I'm ever able to get the 76 OW26 400cc up and running can I front the starting gate just once, as this was bike not available to the general public back then ???
21 years ago this all started out as a bit of fun but now I'm beginning to wonder
Regards
Rob.
.
-
I was told by a representative from the Commission that unless it was available to the public it's illegal.
That isn't a written rule and is just one mans take on it
And there lies the biggest hole in the system ;) the rule book is fine it's the human factor that causes issues.
-
I really like seeing these bikes being ridden today. It's funny how we all agree that we need less rules etc, but cant agree what they are.
-
There was also a RH250 ridden at the titles in Broadford 2010. Bernie Leen was riding it and had some great dices with Gary Jones until he blew up the RH ! Nothing was said about the eligibility of the bike then.
I really like seeing these bikes being ridden today. It's funny how we all agree that we need less rules etc, but cant agree what they are.
I reckon the rules should allow for ANY bike that was made in the period (or of period correct parts) should be eligible.
If we want more bums on seats, exclusion is not the way to do it.....
-
That was the RN400..
-
I was sure it was a 250. Gary Jones was in pre75 250. I was marshalling at the event and lent Gary the suspension from my Elsinore to race with.
-
Ex Gary Adams RN400
The race you saw Gary and Bernie in may have been the age group race, thats when Bernie had a DNF in the last heat.
-
Here we go again. People reading half or thinking about half of the equation.
Works bikes are not the problem. It's the parts on the bike that are the problem. SOME OF THE PARTS.
It ain't rocket science. A 74 rh or RN fit in our rules for pre 75. They don't have water cooling or 12" of suspension. It's when a works bike has special parts that Joe blogs couldn't buy back in the day like an alloy arm, forward mount shocks or water cooling.
If it fits the rules it's okay. Both of Dave tanners bikes fit the criteria of pre 75. End of story. End of debate.
-
So in 74 Joe blogs could go down to his local Suzuki dealer and walk out with a RH 74
-
Brad while DTs bikes have been mentioned ( and they are without doubt pre 75 legal )the question was raised about actual works bikes not the limited edition replicas.
As Johnny O pointed out the actual factory 74 RH and RNs had way more suspension travel in late 74 than what the rules allow so they would not be pre 75 legal . If i read the rules correctly then as they are 74 designated models ( allbeit works bikes ) they are not eligible for pre 78 either :) so in the unlikely event somone unearths a 74 factory RH or RN they would have to ride it in Evo ;D
-
So in 74 Joe blogs could go down to his local Suzuki dealer and walk out with a RH 74
I think so Ted as long as he was fast enough and the dealer was happy to sell or sponsor him on one .
I think they were only available in the UK , NZ and Australia though :-\
-
I realize that Bill, but Joe blogs is just your average racer. Not an expert.
Availability to the public as a whole is the issue.
I am not questioning Dave's integrity or his bike, it is just that he is the only one that I know of with a RH
My point is : It being a RH ( works, semi works, limited edition, only available to a selected few, whatever ) would have Pre Production parts fitted to differentiate it from a TM. Exactly the same as Anthony Gunter had in 1977 when he had a Suzuki alloy arm fitted to his 370. I understand the RH may need to be lowered to comply with Pre 75 rules . Both bikes were limited edition works/ semi works bikes available only to a select few.
If the RH is legal surely the 77 alloy arm has to be deemed legal as well.
-
I think you would find Bill, if you limited the suspension travel to pre75 spec's , those 74 RH/RN's are in....it would be great to see more of that stuff out and about. I'm building a replica OW12 out of a YZ250B, I have some cool OW parts for it and it will be pre78 legal. 8)....speaking of which....how's me parts coming along...LOL... ;D
-
So in 74 Joe blogs could go down to his local Suzuki dealer and walk out with a RH 74
In 1975 my mate was looking to move up from his Maico so I accompanied him to Hazell and Moore in Wentworth Avenue, downtown Sydney to look at the new RM-A range. While he was talking turkey with the salesman I wandered over to a line of about 6 RH75s and a couple of RH74's that were up for sale. They were for sale to anyone with the money in their pocket for discounted prices just to get rid of them because they wanted to sell RM's not limited edition bikes with no parts backup. The RM-A was arguably a better bike that the RH75 anyway. If only we had a crystal ball.
My point is : It being a RH ( works, semi works, limited edition, only available to a selected few, whatever ) would have Pre Production parts fitted to differentiate it from a TM
Very few, if any RH parts ever went onto production models.
-
Ted, the optional alloy arm for RM125B's is legal....always has been....it's just you guy's make a mountain out of a molehill.
-
Ted, the optional alloy arm for RM125B's is legal....always has been....it's just you guy's make a mountain out of a molehill.
OH brother not this again....... ;D ;D ;D
-
it's just you guy's make a mountain out of a molehill.
Or a storm in a tea cup ;D.
-
Ted, the optional alloy arm for RM125B's is legal....always has been....it's just you guy's make a mountain out of a molehill.
Molehill you say. So why does the eligibility scrutineer at the coming Nats deem it illegal.
-
So in 74 Joe blogs could go down to his local Suzuki dealer and walk out with a RH 74
No in 1974 Joe Blogs couldn't go into a Suzuki dealer and buy a 1974 RH. In 1974 and possibly 73 there RH Suzukis in Queensland. Phil Thew Moto had two, for Randy Jones and Ross Kingston. John Walmsley also had one. There were other riders in other states with RHs and RNs.
However very late in 1974 while Joe Blogs couldn't buy an RH yet!!!!! Kevin M a "B" Grader was able to trade his Maico 250 in on a 1975 RH. I have photos of it. Phil Thew Moto also got one of the two that arrived first. Stan Veenstra rode Phil's. A few months later another shipment arrived and anyone could get one of the limited shipment. In some respects they weren't full works bikes, but the engine was.
-
After having read all of this thread here is my view. The limited production RHs and RNs in some respects were available to the public. Unlike real works bikes, no one made the shops or riders give the bikes back at the end of the season. They weren't sent back to the factory to be crushed, like a real works bike. I traded my RH in on a RM 250 A. So anyone could buy them 2nd hand. I bet no one has been able to buy a real works bike.
As for the alloy swingarm for a RM 125 B. Yes they are legal. But my view is, you will need to be able to prove that it is genuine not a modified C swingarm.
Just a side note the motor on the RH was better than the RM 250 A. Better power.
-
Well we'll have our answer on Friday pertaining to its eligibility.
-
I thought you weren't fitting the alloy swingarm Ted. You do know that Dave Tanner isn't scrutineering at the Nats don't you?
-
I don't care who is scrutineering Mark. Somebody is going to have to make the call.
-
As for the alloy swingarm for a RM 125 B. Yes they are legal. But my view is, you will need to be able to prove that it is genuine not a modified C swingarm.
While im not disputing this statement , does that mean that if somebody rocks up with an RM 250B that they would have to prove that the lower frame cradle had not been replaced with one from an RM 250C model ( as they do have a habit of rotting out .
Yeah i know its forking stupid , but to all intents and purposes is the bullshit about the optional arm .
Ted has stated on many many occasions that he has been informed by the eligibility scrutineer for the nats that the arm is illegal, so who is he to believe :-\
-
They all seem to have become expert metallurgists all of a sudden and can determine when a weld was done from a photo
-
I thought you weren't fitting the alloy swingarm Ted. You do know that Dave Tanner isn't scrutineering at the Nats don't you?
Are you sure that is right Firko? In conversations I've had with Crocket, I got the impression it was Davey and Dave Tanner scrutineering?
I don't care who is scrutineering Mark. Somebody is going to have to make the call.
Good luck with that Ted. Just make sure you pack the standard arm in case ;)
-
Are you sure that is right Firko? In conversations I've had with Crocket, I got the impression it was Davey and Dave Tanner scrutineering?
Dave Tanner has to work the big boat show on the Gold Coast so he sadly can't be there. Vandy, Crocket and me will be handling eligibility.
-
Are you sure that is right Firko? In conversations I've had with Crocket, I got the impression it was Davey and Dave Tanner scrutineering?
Dave Tanner has to work the big boat show on the Gold Coast so he sadly can't be there. Vandy, Crocket and me will be handling eligibility.
Okay ;D
-
Well I'll make your job easy then Mark. I have proof that this arm left the factory as a optional part and is not a butchered c part. When you see it you will agree, I'm sure. Funny thing is it was staring me in the face the whole time.
-
Well I'll make your job easy then Mark. I have proof that this arm left the factory as a optional part and is not a butchered c part. When you see it you will agree, I'm sure. Funny thing is it was staring me in the face the whole time.
Lol .. listen here Teddles .... a dodgy "77" stamped on the underside just isn't going to fly bucko .. bring the steel arm as well otherwise you'll be needing more than 4 JD's ;)
-
Does anyone know who the level four Chief Scrutineer is and who the Steward is? The supp-regs don't state who they are and the final instructions don't also.
Any final decision on eligibility will be up to the Chief Scrutineer and then he may have to refer it to the Clerk of Course.
As for RM alloy swingarms, TM Bill you said you had one you would sell. Is it a genuine 1977 optional swingarm or a modified C arm?
Everyone please read GCR 18.2.1.2.
-
As far as i know its the real deal :) however i didn't buy it in 1977 from a Suzuki dealer so ???????????????????????
I bought it off ebay about 10 yrs ago from the US .
But i have welded a new cradle from a C model into a B frame as the B one was rotted out . The C frame had a badly bent steering head and backbone so became a donor frame .
I suppose technically it is now not eligible for pre 78 ;D i couldn't say what year the mig wire was made that was used to fuse the two pieces :o could be it has to go into pre 2010 ;D
-
Your a bunch of sarcastic funny carnts... ;D. Kev, it's all worked out with modern technology. ;)
-
As far as i know its the real deal :) however i didn't buy it in 1977 from a Suzuki dealer so ???????????????????????
I bought it off ebay about 10 yrs ago from the US .
But i have welded a new cradle from a C model into a B frame as the B one was rotted out . The C frame had a badly bent steering head and backbone so became a donor frame .
I suppose technically it is now not eligible for pre 78 ;D i couldn't say what year the mig wire was made that was used to fuse the two pieces :o could be it has to go into pre 2010 ;D
Shit Ira, wait until the Hobbit finds out about this.Tank-gate will be a minor skirmish once the hairy footed monster gets his teeth into this scandal !! :D
-
Hold off selling the B arm till after the weekend Bill. If its ridgey didge, like mine, you can name your own price :D
PM sent Bill
-
It easy to tell the early optional arms as the welding looks ( all joints) looks like it was done by the Suzuki apprentice scheme , the C ones are much tidier by comparison.But really who F&*(en cares they are the same thing measurement wise!! now GO race!
-
Incorrect
-
Like all eligibility threads, this one has an awful lot of replies based on what people think the rules say, and based on what people want the rules to say.
If you look at what the rules actually say, then the answer is clear.
Just like SexMax. :)
-
Come on Ted. The barrow is the old chest nut alloy arm. Which has nothing to do with a works bike.
-
This is doing my head in. As Davey Crocket says............ Ted, the optional alloy arm for RM125B's is legal....always has been....it's just you guy's make a mountain out of a molehill.
.
-
This is doing my head in. As Davey Crocket says............ Ted, the optional alloy arm for RM125B's is legal....always has been....it's just you guy's make a mountain out of a molehill.
.
Mark why was Ted told by an official ( i dont know who ) that the thing is illegal ??? Ted went through all the channels ie MA as is always advised on here and was told by an official its illegal .
This is where the system falls over, you and Joan are both event scrutineers and are saying yep go for it , yet in the build upto the event Ted tried to get clarification and was told the opposite .
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
-
I don't know who Ted spoke to. I'm only offering an opinion based on what people who know such stuff have told me. It all comes down to Ted having to present documented proof that the swingarm was available for the B model. No matter who said whatever, if the proof is documented it must be declared legal. What is illegal is a C model swingarm modified to look like a B version. Even though I think the difference is two fifths of fluck all, we have to go with the written interpretation......"all major components must be manufactured before December 31 1977".
-
Let it go Bill.
I will prove to them on Friday it's not a butchered C arm. Then they will be forced to make a call either way.
4 officials 4 different answers.
I am starting to wonder if any of them have ever viewed one.
-
This is doing my head in. As Davey Crocket says............ Ted, the optional alloy arm for RM125B's is legal....always has been....it's just you guy's make a mountain out of a molehill.
.
Mark why was Ted told by an official ( i dont know who ) that the thing is illegal ??? Ted went through all the channels ie MA as is always advised on here and was told by an official its illegal .
This is where the system falls over, you and Joan are both event scrutineers and are saying yep go for it , yet in the build upto the event Ted tried to get clarification and was told the opposite .
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
+1.
The case of the RM-B alloy arms vs modified RM-C alloy arms is completely retarded.
The absolute impossibility of determining the way the factory welded the brake lug makes it impossible to enforce any "no modified RM-C arms" rule. Without a solid way of determining the difference between the two identical items, then accepting all arms as being the optional B arm is the only enforcable response.
Noting Firko's comment about the age of bits, how do we justify the legality of the various replica frames in all eras from Pre-70 onward? The answer is much harder than I thought it would be... ;)
-
rule GCR 18.2.1.2.
Ted this is the only rule you need to satisfy same as you have been told several hundred times since you bought the bike. Almost everyone agrees that it makes SFA to the bikes performance. You just have to be able to prove that it was available for the 'B' model in 1977. Another several pages almost exactly the same as several pages early in the year. The problem is no one seems to be confident enough or actually have any evidence other than a parts book (which is specifically ruled out by the MOMS) that the alloy arms were ever actually sold or even available.
Without covering old ground the early 'C' models had the arm with the lug attached the original sales leaflets showed the lug on the swingarm. Surely one Suzuki dealer or owner from the day will sign a Statutory Declaration. I hope that you can run the arm so this bloody thread does not keep coming up then what about a floating brake. I had a 'B' model in '77 with a floating rear brake is it legal should be, now can I have the optional alloy swingarm with a floating brake should be able to, right. Now if I cut the brake lug off my optional alloy arm because I have a floating rear brake is that OK, well that would make it an awful lot like a 'C' model
Oh GOD that would not be legal, RIGHT
-
Stick to your guns, Ted.
As Greg just said, the only thing that really matters is whether you can make a good-enough case that the alloy arm existed in 1977 for 1977 models. If you think you can do that, then that's all that matters.
Based on what is in the rules, the rest of it WILL go your way if push comes to shove. The stuff about availability, the style of the weld, etc etc are all going to evaporate very quickly once it becomes about the rules, rather than opinions/gut feelings/etc.
-
This is doing my head in. As Davey Crocket says............ Ted, the optional alloy arm for RM125B's is legal....always has been....it's just you guy's make a mountain out of a molehill.
.
Mark why was Ted told by an official ( i dont know who ) that the thing is illegal ??? Ted went through all the channels ie MA as is always advised on here and was told by an official its illegal .
This is where the system falls over, you and Joan are both event scrutineers and are saying yep go for it , yet in the build upto the event Ted tried to get clarification and was told the opposite .
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
+1.
The case of the RM-B alloy arms vs modified RM-C alloy arms is completely retarded.
The absolute impossibility of determining the way the factory welded the brake lug makes it impossible to enforce any "no modified RM-C arms" rule. Without a solid way of determining the difference between the two identical items, then accepting all arms as being the optional B arm is the only enforcable response.
Noting Firko's comment about the age of bits, how do we justify the legality of the various replica frames in all eras from Pre-70 onward? The answer is much harder than I thought it would be... ;)
I have found the information to determine what is a optional B arm as opposed to a modified C arm.
-
I have found the information to determine what is a optional B arm as opposed to a modified C arm.
Shit. That will kill about half the forum traffic then....
-
Ted after the weekend could you be so kind as to share that info here if possible? ;) ::)
-
OOOOOO my god. I have been away from VMX for a few years now. Now I live nearer to the QLD action I was thinking its time to get my cr125 out of storage & get into it again. I have just sat here & wasted 45 mins of my life on this thread & now thinking I might stay playing on moderns & coaching kids. I thougt junior sport was bad but you guys make them look profesional. :(
-
Let it go Bill.
I will prove to them on Friday it's not a butchered C arm. Then they will be forced to make a call either way.
4 officials 4 different answers.
I am starting to wonder if any of them have ever viewed one.
I want to Mark but it is about more than the optional Suzuki arm its about how these things are handled by those in positions of power , officialdom call it what you like .
I make no secret that i dont like rules and regulations in any walk of life and have been fighting the establishment since i started school ::)
However sports need rules and recreations need guidelines :)
I think what you have in Australia is a bloody good model on how to run and grow vintage off road motorcyling. My interest is limited to VMX and Vinduro and your guys structure and rules are IMHO very very good.
The problems i have seen both on this forum ( cyber problems if you like ) and the ones i have witnessed and experienced at events seems to stem from officials interpretation of the rules and a lack of continuity .
Everyone is quick to roll their eyes at the mention of that bloody arm , but Ted has gone down the official road and has still been left hanging .
Im not bagging vollenteers or officials , i have been on MC club commites, been a club president and a club secretary for many years and been a MX commisioner for MNZ . I have run many events at both club and national level so i have seen it all from both sides .
Surley somthing like this bloody arm could have been cleared up a long time ago and been added to the MOMs . I think the question of this item was first raised on this forum after the Conondale nats ( 3 yrs ago ? ) and still joe licence holder doesn't have an answer . Those at the top have said on here that this forum is NOT where decisions will be made , but Ted has taken it to the top and still nothing. When will the licence holder know wether or not he has to carry a selction of swinging arms to events so to comply depending on whos on duty that day and what mood their in :-\
-
rule GCR 18.2.1.2.
Ted this is the only rule you need to satisfy same as you have been told several hundred times since you bought the bike. Almost everyone agrees that it makes SFA to the bikes performance. You just have to be able to prove that it was available for the 'B' model in 1977. Another several pages almost exactly the same as several pages early in the year. The problem is no one seems to be confident enough or actually have any evidence other than a parts book (which is specifically ruled out by the MOMS) that the alloy arms were ever actually sold or even available.
Without covering old ground the early 'C' models had the arm with the lug attached the original sales leaflets showed the lug on the swingarm. Surely one Suzuki dealer or owner from the day will sign a Statutory Declaration. I hope that you can run the arm so this bloody thread does not keep coming up then what about a floating brake. I had a 'B' model in '77 with a floating rear brake is it legal should be, now can I have the optional alloy swingarm with a floating brake should be able to, right. Now if I cut the brake lug off my optional alloy arm because I have a floating rear brake is that OK, well that would make it an awful lot like a 'C' model
Oh GOD that would not be legal, RIGHT
With respect, according to the MoMS, I do not have to prove that it was available for a 1977 model. It could be off a 76,75 model of any manufacturer, being aftermarket or factory.
All I have to prove is , Was an aluminium swingarm available for a Suzuki prior to 31/12/1977. Well it was. Rahier in 1976 and 1977 Gunter in 1977. There is absolutely no reference in the MoMS that says parts sales dockets need to be produced. There is also no limitation on who or where these parts are sourced. Not one reference to works, pre production parts being illegal. As long as there is proof of Suzuki racing bikes prior to 31/12/1977 wearing aluminium swingarms, as we all have seen in the pics of DeCoster, Rahier, Gunter and countless others it has to be legal to use a Suzuki optional aluminium swingarm made for a B model on a Pre 78. I have an original alloy B arm, not a modified C arm, which I will bring to scrutineering and point out the difference.
You state that early C models came out with the lug on them. My bet is they were left over optional B models arms that weren't sold due to the high price of them. From memory they wanted about 30% of the purchase price of the bike extra just for a swingarm.
Like I said we will have an answer on friday
-
Ted after the weekend could you be so kind as to share that info here if possible? ;) ::)
No problem Tim.
-
rule GCR 18.2.1.2.
Ted this is the only rule you need to satisfy same as you have been told several hundred times since you bought the bike. Almost everyone agrees that it makes SFA to the bikes performance. You just have to be able to prove that it was available for the 'B' model in 1977. Another several pages almost exactly the same as several pages early in the year. The problem is no one seems to be confident enough or actually have any evidence other than a parts book (which is specifically ruled out by the MOMS) that the alloy arms were ever actually sold or even available.
Without covering old ground the early 'C' models had the arm with the lug attached the original sales leaflets showed the lug on the swingarm. Surely one Suzuki dealer or owner from the day will sign a Statutory Declaration. I hope that you can run the arm so this bloody thread does not keep coming up then what about a floating brake. I had a 'B' model in '77 with a floating rear brake is it legal should be, now can I have the optional alloy swingarm with a floating brake should be able to, right. Now if I cut the brake lug off my optional alloy arm because I have a floating rear brake is that OK, well that would make it an awful lot like a 'C' model
Oh GOD that would not be legal, RIGHT
With respect, according to the MoMS, I do not have to prove that it was available for a 1977 model. It could be off a 76,75 model of any manufacturer, being aftermarket or factory.
All I have to prove is , Was an aluminium swingarm available for a Suzuki prior to 31/12/1977. Well it was. Rahier in 1976 and 1977 Gunter in 1977. There is absolutely no reference in the MoMS that says parts sales dockets need to be produced. There is also no limitation on who or where these parts are sourced. Not one reference to works, pre production parts being illegal. As long as there is proof of Suzuki racing bikes prior to 31/12/1977 wearing aluminium swingarms, as we all have seen in the pics of DeCoster, Rahier, Gunter and countless others it has to be legal to use a Suzuki optional aluminium swingarm made for a B model on a Pre 78. I have an original alloy B arm, not a modified C arm, which I will bring to scrutineering and point out the difference.
You state that early C models came out with the lug on them. My bet is they were left over optional B models arms that weren't sold due to the high price of them. From memory they wanted about 30% of the purchase price of the bike extra just for a swingarm.
Like I said we will have an answer on friday
Being for '75 or '76 would make it available for the '77 model Ted same as the sprocket for a '76 models is available for the '77 ::) I did not say specific to the '77 model
I also bet the 'C' models with lugs are B arms but that could also prove they didn't sell em in '77 as they were still at the factory not at shops ready for 'C' models.
Please don't rely on that one picture of Gunter on a bike with an alloy arm as it also has a floating brake and could be a 'C' model with the 'B' alloy tank due to using 'fuel' or some other combination or could be testing parts from Japan (not legal) who knows unless you have documentation. If you think a picture of Rahier or DeCoster is going to sway it your way you may as well leave it on the trailer.
I wish you luck and I hope you have enough solid documentation if challenged and good luck at the meeting as well
-
Hey Bill, I am still waiting to hear back from the powers that be on how do they measure suspension travel. After asking two scrutineers I got two differing answers. Hence my email to officialdom.
It's only been a couple of months, maybe I'm being impatient.
These people care 2/5ths of fu..kall about classic motocross. Which was quite evident when it took the good people of Qld to step in to save these titles instead of MNSW getting it back on the rails.
Were MNSW told to get off their arses and organise a one day dirt track meet at Blayney on the same weekend as the titles because no other club would. Who would know.
-
And you wonder why people bother !!!!!!
-
rule GCR 18.2.1.2.
Ted this is the only rule you need to satisfy same as you have been told several hundred times since you bought the bike. Almost everyone agrees that it makes SFA to the bikes performance. You just have to be able to prove that it was available for the 'B' model in 1977. Another several pages almost exactly the same as several pages early in the year. The problem is no one seems to be confident enough or actually have any evidence other than a parts book (which is specifically ruled out by the MOMS) that the alloy arms were ever actually sold or even available.
Without covering old ground the early 'C' models had the arm with the lug attached the original sales leaflets showed the lug on the swingarm. Surely one Suzuki dealer or owner from the day will sign a Statutory Declaration. I hope that you can run the arm so this bloody thread does not keep coming up then what about a floating brake. I had a 'B' model in '77 with a floating rear brake is it legal should be, now can I have the optional alloy swingarm with a floating brake should be able to, right. Now if I cut the brake lug off my optional alloy arm because I have a floating rear brake is that OK, well that would make it an awful lot like a 'C' model
Oh GOD that would not be legal, RIGHT
With respect, according to the MoMS, I do not have to prove that it was available for a 1977 model. It could be off a 76,75 model of any manufacturer, being aftermarket or factory.
All I have to prove is , Was an aluminium swingarm available for a Suzuki prior to 31/12/1977. Well it was. Rahier in 1976 and 1977 Gunter in 1977. There is absolutely no reference in the MoMS that says parts sales dockets need to be produced. There is also no limitation on who or where these parts are sourced. Not one reference to works, pre production parts being illegal. As long as there is proof of Suzuki racing bikes prior to 31/12/1977 wearing aluminium swingarms, as we all have seen in the pics of DeCoster, Rahier, Gunter and countless others it has to be legal to use a Suzuki optional aluminium swingarm made for a B model on a Pre 78. I have an original alloy B arm, not a modified C arm, which I will bring to scrutineering and point out the difference.
You state that early C models came out with the lug on them. My bet is they were left over optional B models arms that weren't sold due to the high price of them. From memory they wanted about 30% of the purchase price of the bike extra just for a swingarm.
Like I said we will have an answer on friday
Being for '75 or '76 would make it available for the '77 model Ted same as the sprocket for a '76 models is available for the '77 ::) I did not say specific to the '77 model
I also bet the 'C' models with lugs are B arms but that could also prove they didn't sell em in '77 as they were still at the factory not at shops ready for 'C' models.
Please don't rely on that one picture of Gunter on a bike with an alloy arm as it also has a floating brake and could be a 'C' model with the 'B' alloy tank due to using 'fuel' or some other combination or could be testing parts from Japan (not legal) who knows unless you have documentation. If you think a picture of Rahier or DeCoster is going to sway it your way you may as well leave it on the trailer.
I wish you luck and I hope you have enough solid documentation if challenged and good luck at the meeting as well
Where do the rules prohibit works parts?
-
I am starting to wonder if any of them have ever viewed one
Speaking for myself, I may have seen one but I don't really recall or actually care if I have. All a scrutineer has to rely on is documented proof that the part in question existed prior to Dec 31 1977. If you've got proof from Suzuki or a dated magazine article or advertisement dated prior to December 31 1977 any scrutineer must pass it as legitimate. Do not however rely on grainy photos of Anthony Gunter or Gaston Rahier only to prove your case. A similar situation arose back in 98 at the Ravenswood Nats when Brad Lewis fronted scrutineer Peter Drakeford with a 74.5 KTM with factory fitted 45degree lay down shocks. Drakey attempted to knock the bike back as it being a post 75 model but Brad had a large bunch of magazine articles and brochures backing his case. Drakey stood firm but others including myself were called in to adjudicate and Drakey was overruled and Brad was allowed to compete on the KTM. If Brad hadn't done his homework and brought his documentation, there's no way that bike would have passed. Without the documentation I'd have thought the bike was post '75 myself, as did many others.
This pedantic rubbish is doing more harm to our sport than anything I can think of. Any newbie reading this would think we're all a bunch of wankers. The truth is that there are comparatively few eligibility hassles and those that do arise are usually handled promptly and discreetly. This situation shouldn't have lasted this long. Let's hope there's no more of this stuff on the weekend.
-
This pedantic rubbish is doing more harm to our sport than anything I can think of. Any newbie reading this would think we're all a bunch of wankers. The truth is that there are comparatively few eligibility hassles and those that do arise are usually handled promptly and discreetly. This situation shouldn't have lasted this long. Let's hope there's no more of this stuff on the weekend.
[/quote]
Ted you started this thread all wrong
Mentioning almost unobtainable works bikes when you were on the RM B alloy arm eligibility Judgement Day case,
Common sense (which is not that common) says that the arm is legal,
Ted good luck but remember without volunteer officials there is no race meetings.
-
so Joan - slightly differnt but same subject - my works cylinder we are discussing - isn't eligible because it was not available to the public???????????
-
Jezus Ross, don't start another one.....we'll discuss it after the Nats......make sure you bring a brown paper bag full of money Ted....that's how we do it in QLD. ;).....lol.....actually 3....me, Vandy and Firko....and some doggie bickkies for Firko's dog. ;D...I've got the schnapps.
-
I still cant get my head around why an original suzuki part catalogue/book dated before 77' with the arm clearly in it -with a part number is not enough documentation ! yet a sketchy photo "could be" :-\ its a bit like a monty python skit ??? Iam not even gunna mention the sidepoint B-40 saga - Errrrrrr
-
This pedantic rubbish is doing more harm to our sport than anything I can think of. Any newbie reading this would think we're all a bunch of wankers. The truth is that there are comparatively few eligibility hassles and those that do arise are usually handled promptly and discreetly. This situation shouldn't have lasted this long. Let's hope there's no more of this stuff on the weekend.
Ted you started this thread all wrong
Mentioning almost unobtainable works bikes when you were on the RM B alloy arm eligibility Judgement Day case,
Common sense (which is not that common) says that the arm is legal,
Ted good luck but remember without volunteer officials there is no race meetings.
Come on Ted. The barrow is the old chest nut alloy arm. Which has nothing to do with a works bike.
Again and again, the human part of the equation gets in the way of a few rules and regulations. If you read the rules, right wrong or otherwise, in their simplest form which OBVIOUSLY was the intent, then you can build a bike and compete without a problem. Once you have a barrow aka bike/ part that doesn't fit then the interpretations start to justify said part/bike.
I must say that in this case after talking to people and reading on here that they were around back then and know that the arm is indeed legal bar the actual proof that is required, which is why it is so hard to get it accepted, not to mention that the powers that be must not have any idea themselves if they were indeed available, hence the onus of proof yadda yadda.
Even the reference of works bike parts is not whether it's covered in the rule book. If the part is off a works bike and clearly not a part that is acceptable for the era, then it's not able to be used.
An official said "no works bike parts are allowed", right? A direct quote? Or was it a bit more elaborate than that? I personally would have said no works parts that are deemed illegal in normal circumstances, for e.g a specific arm, suspension that has too much travel for the era etc etc etc etc....
Anything from Anthony Gunters works bike from 1977 that you wanted to use as proof that it was available in 1975/6/7 cannot be used as proof as it was not available to the public. This is how it is and meant to be but it's twisted around to suit an argument in the form of 'no works parts'.
I also think that having a go at Dave and his bikes is a low shot and also completely false. His bikes meet all criteria for pre 75. Thank god we have blokes like Dave that put in time for free so we can ride. That he does for the love of the sport.
-
so Joan - slightly differnt but same subject - my works cylinder we are discussing - isn't eligible because it was not available to the public???????????
Shit Ross,are you sure a works cylinder is a wise move?You wouldnt want to fall off and break a finger nail darling.
-
I also think that having a go at Dave and his bikes is a low shot and also completely false. His bikes meet all criteria for pre 75. Thank god we have blokes like Dave that put in time for free so we can ride. That he does for the love of the sport.
I agree, Dave might not have given you the answer you want Ted but to question his knowledge and credibility is a long stretch. Dave's taken on two of the most thankless jobs in our sport, chairing on the commission and scrutineering eligibility at the Nats but he does it with a smile and is still as keen as he was 20 years ago. Situations like this must make him wonder why he's doing what he does though. Dave's pretty clued up on a large cross section of VMX eligible bikes but he's not Mr Memory, he can't be expected to know everything about every bike....nobody can. That's why he is insisting on bulletproof documentation to prove the B model alloy swingarm was available in 1976. It covers both your and his arses.
Even the reference of works bike parts is not whether it's covered in the rule book. If the part is off a works bike and clearly not a part that is acceptable for the era, then it's not able to be used.
If works bike parts are not legal where do those Karl Landrus works replica swingarms everyone drools over fit in? or RC parts on CR Hondas or for that matter the OW front wheel that was on my B&S TM400? I say they're legal as long as they are from the era in which bike is being raced. Can of worms.
-
Speaking for myself, I may have seen one but I don't really recall or actually care if I have. All a scrutineer has to rely on is documented proof that the part in question existed prior to Dec 31 1977. If you've got proof from Suzuki or a dated magazine article or advertisement dated prior to December 31 1977 any scrutineer must pass it as legitimate. Do not however rely on grainy photos of Anthony Gunter or Gaston Rahier only to prove your case. A similar situation arose back in 98 at the Ravenswood Nats when Brad Lewis fronted scrutineer Peter Drakeford with a 74.5 KTM with factory fitted 45degree lay down shocks. Drakey attempted to knock the bike back as it being a post 75 model but Brad had a large bunch of magazine articles and brochures backing his case. Drakey stood firm but others including myself were called in to adjudicate and Drakey was overruled and Brad was allowed to compete on the KTM. If Brad hadn't done his homework and brought his documentation, there's no way that bike would have passed. Without the documentation I'd have thought the bike was post '75 myself, as did many others.
And I believe that Brad L hasn't been back to a Nationals since...
This pedantic rubbish is doing more harm to our sport than anything I can think of. Any newbie reading this would think we're all a bunch of wankers. The truth is that there are comparatively few eligibility hassles and those that do arise are usually handled promptly and discreetly. This situation shouldn't have lasted this long.
The fact that the conversation has dragged on so long, shows that we must be a bunch of wankers.
The fact that the conversation has not found a clear resolution shows that the rules are deficient (like I've been saying for eight years now).
The real problem is that Ted can't get a straight answer. He has a justified belief that his alloy swing arm is legal, but has to spend many hundreds of dollars and ~24 hours in the car to find out - including the possibility that he will be told that it is not legal, and that he's just wasted all that time and money.
What makes it worse is that unless it is protested and dragged through the MA process, the answer he's given will not be the final word - right or wrong, the decision will still be heavily influenced by the whim of the scrutineer on the day.
This shit is poison to any sport, and our sport is rife with it.
People want certainty.
Nobody wants to invest their time, money and emotion into a maybe, so they seek a definitive answer but cannot get it.
We need to fix this, or it will continue to corrode the sport.
-
I also think that having a go at Dave and his bikes is a low shot and also completely false. His bikes meet all criteria for pre 75. Thank god we have blokes like Dave that put in time for free so we can ride. That he does for the love of the sport.
I agree, Dave might not have given you the answer you want Ted but to question his knowledge and credibility is a long stretch. Dave's taken on two of the most thankless jobs in our sport, chairing on the commission and scrutineering eligibility at the Nats but he does it with a smile and is still as keen as he was 20 years ago. Situations like this must make him wonder why he's doing what he does though. Dave's pretty clued up on a large cross section of VMX eligible bikes but he's not Mr Memory, he can't be expected to know everything about every bike....nobody can. That's why he is insisting on bulletproof documentation to prove the B model alloy swingarm was available in 1976. It covers both your and his arses.
Even the reference of works bike parts is not whether it's covered in the rule book. If the part is off a works bike and clearly not a part that is acceptable for the era, then it's not able to be used.
It's true, nobody can be rightly expected to know every little detail of every bike. That is why there is a process at scrutineering that enables us to question a decision. There is more than 1 person to argue (politely of course) your case. Just remember, there is no point standing at the face of the scrutineer trying to sort something out when there are another 30 or so bikes waiting in line behind you. It just puts every one under pressure! When things are slow at the scrutineer line, that is the time to have any discussion about your bike. Between 3 scrutineers, someone will know the eligibility of a part / bike. That in turn educates those that didn't know.
Mark, you helped me out at Connondale in '09 when Dave T knocked back my Elsionore because of the GEM reed valve set up. Thankfully, you knew the part was available in '74 and informed Dave as such so the bike was good to go. I didn't have any documents to verify the reeds as I was new to VMX at that stage and had no idea that was required for proof of said part.
The thing that impressed me was when I ran into Dave T at Broadford in 2010 and he asked if I had the Elsinore with me. He wanted to look at the reed set up. He had a very good look at the set up and I'm sure it has stayed with him ever since. That in turn gives me confidence that the knowledge tree has kept on growing every time a special part turns up to an event.
If works bike parts are not legal where do those Karl Landrus works replica swingarms everyone drools over fit in? or RC parts on CR Hondas or for that matter the OW front wheel that was on my B&S TM400? I say they're legal as long as they are from the era in which bike is being raced. Can of worms.
TOUCHE'
It's about time someone said something logical :)
-
I'm sorry Joan - thought we were talking works bits :'( Simple question really :-\ - and then it moved onto Suzuki swingarms again ::)
Liz - BMB ;D
-
All this is why Log Books were introduced :-X There endeth the carry on.
-
I'm with Brad 090. The pre Nats frenzy starts. Every year, just before the Nats these issues start getting thrashed about absolutely ensuring the particilar hobby horse in vogue will be a cause of controversy at scrutineering.
If the bike has a "grey area" component why not fit the component that you know will not be questioned.
We are all supposedly here to have some good racing and a good time.The event is made possible by volunteers who in the main do their best with no tangible reward. The rules are in the main very good, but in any set of rules there will be grey areas,and that puts it to the judgement of volunteer scrutineers, and then to an MA appointed official. If they say no because you havn't satisfied them then the onus is up to you.
Why push it when you know it's just a pile of grief for everyone concerned.
-
Just a note Mark.. the old 31 December "rule" has gone.. it now reads...Acceptable for the pre 78 classes are machines and components that are limited to the 1975, 1976, 1977 models alone. The only exception to this rule is where the model remains unaltered after this date... See you guys in a couple of days... the pub in Boonah does great meals.. :)
-
See you guys in a couple of days... the pub in Boonah does great meals.. :)
I look forward to seeing you, Bill and the other Sandgropers Brian.............see ya Friday.
-
I still cant get my head around why an original suzuki part catalogue/book dated before 77' with the arm clearly in it -with a part number is not enough documentation ! yet a sketchy photo "could be" :-\ its a bit like a monty python skit ??? Iam not even gunna mention the sidepoint B-40 saga - Errrrrrr
Read GCR 18.2.1.2. your answer is there.
I have no doubt that the optional alloy arm was available in 1977. It was not only used by Gunter but also Phil Thew Moto Suzuki riders in Qld. Gunter and Phil's riders also used the RM 125 B forks on their 370s and 250s, along with the alloy arms on both.
To me the real question is, is the alloy arm being presented an original B arm or a modified C. Davey C has already indicated they have a way of checking this. So I believe an original B arm will be able to be used.
The Steward is Ralph Freeman and apparently the level 4 (Chief) Scrutineer is Derek Rumble.
Also there are other alloy arms that are legal for Pre 78 Suzukis. John Walmsley took measurements of Gaston Rahier's swingarm in 1976 and had Vern G make them for him. There were available to anyone. Steve Cramer used one in 1977.
-
Just a note Mark.. the old 31 December "rule" has gone.. it now reads...Acceptable for the pre 78 classes are machines and components that are limited to the 1975, 1976, 1977 models alone. The only exception to this rule is where the model remains unaltered after this date... See you guys in a couple of days... the pub in Boonah does great meals.. :)
Shhhhh ........ You'll have one scrutineer very worried about that, maybe putting works parts on a Pre75 bike won't make it a pre78 bike after all. (Not my rules) just saying. ;D ;D
I hope everyone has a very good weekend at the nationals and good luck to everyone.
DJRacing
-
Hope every one has a good weekend,with no bull shit !!!
Thats what 99% want
-
Bazza and DJ, I hope you both will accompany Bill over next year for the Conondale Classic and be part of the fun...it's like CD but different....you'll love it.
-
I'm with Brad 090. The pre Nats frenzy starts. Every year, just before the Nats these issues start getting thrashed about absolutely ensuring the particilar hobby horse in vogue will be a cause of controversy at scrutineering.
If the bike has a "grey area" component why not fit the component that you know will not be questioned.
We are all supposedly here to have some good racing and a good time.The event is made possible by volunteers who in the main do their best with no tangible reward. The rules are in the main very good, but in any set of rules there will be grey areas,and that puts it to the judgement of volunteer scrutineers, and then to an MA appointed official. If they say no because you havn't satisfied them then the onus is up to you.
Why push it when you know it's just a pile of grief for everyone concerned.
Because if we are serious enough to have a national title, then we are serious enough to be looking for an advantage.
The reverse to your argument is equally valid: if its something questionable, why not just let it through?
-
Just a note Mark.. the old 31 December "rule" has gone.. it now reads...Acceptable for the pre 78 classes are machines and components that are limited to the 1975, 1976, 1977 models alone. The only exception to this rule is where the model remains unaltered after this date... See you guys in a couple of days... the pub in Boonah does great meals.. :)
Shhhhh ........ You'll have one scrutineer very worried about that, maybe putting works parts on a Pre75 bike won't make it a pre78 bike after all. (Not my rules) just saying. ;D ;D
I hope everyone has a very good weekend at the nationals and good luck to everyone.
DJRacing
I think this is what DJs referring to
Davey Crocket
Legend
*****
Posts: 3501
View Profile Email Personal Message (Online)
Re: Works bikes
« Reply #55 on: Yesterday at 01:37:33 PM »
Quote
I think you would find Bill, if you limited the suspension travel to pre75 spec's , those 74 RH/RN's are in....it would be great to see more of that stuff out and about. I'm building a replica OW12 out of a YZ250B, I have some cool OW parts for it and it will be pre78 legal. 8)....speaking of which....how's me parts coming along...LOL... ;D
-
Thank god the dark and depressing world you describe doesn't exist in the real world Nathan. I don't envision many problems with eligibility, as per normal.
I'm looking forward to helping with eligibility, if only to prove to myself that most of the forum eligibility situations are the products of bored minds looking for hypotheticals to prove how smart they are at finding 'loopholes'. Most of these doom and gloom situations don't exist in the real world.
-
Because Nathan if it's questionable the onus is on the owner.
Because if is questionable and the scrutineer knocks it back he pisses off the owner,
" " " lets it go he pisses off others in the class
If "it's no real advantage so why not let it go"?
Equally if it's no advantage why fit it and start another controversy.
Im talking generally and not alluding to swing arms or specific issues.
-
I just want to ride .. and socialise .. and have fun ... and ride .. and socialise ... and have fun ... and ride ... and socialise ... and have fun ... see the pattern here :)
Whether it's a practice day, a club day or a championship day .... the above holds true.
-
Because Nathan if it's questionable the onus is on the owner.
Because if is questionable and the scrutineer knocks it back he pisses off the owner,
" " " lets it go he pisses off others in the class
If "it's no real advantage so why not let it go"?
Equally if it's no advantage why fit it and start another controversy.
Im talking generally and not alluding to swing arms or specific issues.
My point is that it is a two-way street.
Either:
A) We have a National Title with all the hoopla like we do, and we have to expect that competitors will take it seriously - including seeking an advantage within the rules (and possibly outside of the rules),
OR;
B) We're all just a bunch of people out to throw some dirt around using knobby tyres, in which case people will have far less reason to push the boundaries and there's no problem if people do happen to overstep the mark.
Instead, we're locking in the schism where we lurch between the two, depending on the moods of personalities involved at the time...
-
Thank god the dark and depressing world you describe doesn't exist in the real world Nathan. I don't envision many problems with eligibility, as per normal.
I'm looking forward to helping with eligibility, if only to prove to myself that most of the forum eligibility situations are the products of bored minds looking for hypotheticals to prove how smart they are at finding 'loopholes'. Most of these doom and gloom situations don't exist in the real world.
So why do we KEEP having these conversations about eligibility, ad nauseum?
What you seem incapable of understanding is that your position in the VMX world is utterly atypical. You've been neck-deep in the sport from the very start, and still hold a lot of influence.
Very, very few other people have that sort of depth of involvement.
Virtually everything you offer in these eligibility debates is based on what you know to be the intent thanks to your knowledge of the history - its a useful perspective, but people shouldn't need Firko (or any specific person) to decode what is legal or not.
The rules should make the intent clear so that anyone can put a bike together and confidently take it to any VMX meeting in the country and KNOW that it is legal.
These questions keep coming up for a reason - and dismissing the people who ask them as 'bored troublemakers' does nothing to stop them coming up time and again.
-
:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( Enjoy the meeting folks
-
What you seem incapable of understanding is that your position in the VMX world is utterly atypical. You've been neck-deep in the sport from the very start, and still hold a lot of influence.
Very, very few other people have that sort of depth of involvement.
Virtually everything you offer in these eligibility debates is based on what you know to be the intent thanks to your knowledge of the history - its a useful perspective, but people shouldn't need Firko (or any specific person) to decode what is legal or not
I've had little influence on the sport in years but that's an aside. What you keep avoiding is that the eligibility problems you allude are almost non existent. Don't underestimate the average racer to know his model bike and the era with scholarly vigor. They understand the rules for their class and build and race their bike accordingly with little or no need to fudge the rules. Vintage racers aren't idiots, they can decipher the rules pretty easily and most of them don't go digging looking for hidden loopholes or double meanings like you seem to think they do. They just build their bike and get on with it, with little or no thoughts of cheating or rule bending. We all know that he rules are a long way from perfect, but they're not the disaster you tell us they are either.
Why am I arguing the point, there no need because the majority of us think this discussion is irrelevant.
-
While I don't believe this arm will get the green light, I will guarantee that I dispell any belief surrounding the mystical RM 125 B optional alloy swingarm and that they are not doctored C arms. I will point out to the head scrutineer how to differentiate between the two. Thus laying to rest once and for all the threat of somebody cheating with a later model C arm. Which to me is 80% of the battle.
The other 20% is proving to some that it existed prior to 1978. I will find this evidence, unfortunately not before this Friday but I will find it.
This thread is locked.