OzVMX Forum
Clubroom => Tech Talk => Topic started by: firko on January 06, 2014, 10:25:10 am
-
I bought a pair of early alloy Works Performance shocks from a guy on Marks and when I opened the package on Friday found the extra "weird" shock he threw in the deal. I've been using the early finned alloy Works shocks since back in the day and even though they look totally different to the modern steel or alloy versions, they're identical inside. They're often the best second hand shock deal you can get and fit well with seventies period integrity........However, this extra shock has me beat. It's an otherwise normal finned alloy shock but it features a bolt on oil reservoir, or to be more precise it's held on by a bolt and two springs. I've seen a lot of Works shocks including the standard piggy back shock which has the reservoir cast in one integral unit with the body.
Has anyone seen this type of shock before? I'd love to find another one and use them on one of my bikes. I'm sending the photos to Works to see if they can enlarge on the story for me.
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/extenderweirdshock010_zpsa518157a.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/extenderweirdshock010_zpsa518157a.jpg.html)
Standard finned alloy body.
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/extenderweirdshock011_zps0caa3b6a.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/extenderweirdshock011_zps0caa3b6a.jpg.html)
The bolt on reservoir shock
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/extenderweirdshock013_zps41a648bf.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/extenderweirdshock013_zps41a648bf.jpg.html)
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/worksshockspiggy_zpsf8dc953e.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/worksshockspiggy_zpsf8dc953e.jpg.html)
The one piece Works piggyback
-
I have some of those , they were works first piggyback shock that they sold before they went to the one piece units. From memory they were from around 77.
-
You wouldn't want to part with them would you? Circa 1977 sounds pretty right.
-
Maybe, I'll see if I can dig them out and get some pics.
-
Here's a pair of them, interesting concept for holding the reservoirs
http://www.ebay.com/itm/WORKS-PERFORMANCE-RESERVOIR-SHOCKS-WP-MAICO-CZ-YZ-KTM-HUSKY-BULTACO-MONTESA-BSA-/251402229019?pt=Motorcycles_Parts_Accessories&hash=item3a88bd951b&vxp=mtr
-
Thanks Tony. I've been around for a long time but I've never noticed this type of reservoir before. I now have to have a set of these on one of my bikes. I reckon they're legal for pre 75 too ;).
-
Thanks Tony. I've been around for a long time but I've never noticed this type of reservoir before. I now have to have a set of these on one of my bikes. I reckon they're legal for pre 75 too ;).
They would be over here or maybe it's only new ohlins & promax's that are
-
Our rules disallow remote reservoir shocks in pre 75 so I'd presume that even though the Works reservoirs are detachable, they're still integral with the shock so therefore legal. This is real pedantic anorak stuff, I know ::).
-
I think the only pre75 reservoir shock allowed is the Yamaha thermaflow Firko.....everything else is out.
-
With utmost respect, I think you're wrong dearie.....I had Marzocchi piggybacks on my Maico at one stage and I argued that they were legal because of the wording in the book stating "remote" not piggyback. The steward at that particular Nats had no choice but to agree. Roy Gay tested Peter Drakefords patience at the Barabool Nats by turning up to scrutineering with Ohlins piggybacks and being reluctantly passed because of the same wording anomaly. I haven't got a current MoMs but the wording in my 2010 version puts it as.....Remote reservoir rear shocks are not eligible, except where fitted as standard for that model.
-
You just answered your question Firko.....now name all the pre75 MX bikes that had reservoir type shocks as OEM.....I can only think of the Yam thermaflows.
-
Read the rule again John......It says remote reservoir not piggyback. OEM has nothing to do with it. This is a common mistake, confusing remote reservoir and piggyback shock types. I think the original author of that rule had the same misconception as to what a "remote reservoir shock actually was. They are two, distinctly different styles, one legal (piggyback) the other illegal (remote).
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/shock_zpsdcd43318.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/shock_zpsdcd43318.jpg.html)
Yellow shock is remote reservoir (connected by hose), the one next to it is a piggyback (reservoir an integral part of shock body.)
-
Personally I don't think the area of concern is whether it has a remote reservoir or a piggyback, the perfomance of a modern shock is all in the valving (orifice verses stacked shim), no vmx races are long enough to need the cooling of the extra oil carried in either the piggyback or remote reservoir.
-
I think the Zochis and Thermoflows would be allowed, although reluctantly, by that wording, but the first rezzie Works Performance shocks have a reservoir that is not "integral" to the shock.
-
While I understand your interpretation Walter and bow to your knowledge of shocks and their workings, the MA interpretation of the shock rule is as I wrote it, the remote reservoir is defined as being connected by a hose and a "piggyback" is defined as integral with the shock body. Even though it doesn't explain itself very well in MoMs, past interpretations of the rule have set a precedent that piggybacks be accepted in pre 75. Before I get shot down, I don't necessarily agree with the way this is interpreted but it is what it is until somebody submits a re wording proposal to MA. In reality though, in a world where modern technology multi adjustable nitrogen infused shocks are allowed as long as they don't have a "remote oil reservoir" yet a low technology mid seventies alloy bodied Marzocchi piggyback shock is deemed as illegal because it has an attached reservoir is probably a little silly. With the exception of the reservoir grey area, shock absorbers are an open rule in pre '75 as long as they conform to the 4" travel limit so this discussion is really irrelevant.
by that wording, but the first rezzie Works Performance shocks have a reservoir that is not "integral" to the shock
That's the point that started this discussion. It's all down to interpretation but in reality does it matter much whether you have or don't have a reservoir on your shocks? I doubt it.
-
Firko try a Hi-low speed shock (G 362TRW ) and you will know the difference........
I don't doubt it Walter but how well a shock works is irrelevant to the rulebook. The only grey area is the interpretation of the reservoirs position on the shock but in reality it's not much of a problem. Except for shock travel situations and Drakey's attempt to disqualify Roy Gay for his piggyback Ohlins at Barrabool 20 years ago, I can't recall very much foo foo raw over shocks in pre 75. It's another example of a badly written and poorly thought out rulebook paragraph that has never really become a problem. If we really wanted to tighten the shock absorber rule, perhaps banning external dampening adjustment* would be more relevant than banning a shock because it has a reservoir...(I don't particularly want that introduced either...I'm just playing good/bad cop)
* and then we have the situation of Arnaco shocks having an 8 way external dampening adjustment, and stacked shim operation in 1973.