OzVMX Forum
Clubroom => Competition => Topic started by: John Orchard on December 21, 2014, 10:11:45 pm
-
I'm sorry if this has been raised in past, what flatslide carbs are legal for Pre 85? I imagine only the Mikuni TM's that came on the RM125/250/465 and Magnum's?
-
Lectrons.would be also
-
My opinion is.
The key to it all is that the class is Pre 85.
GCR 16.15.13.1. Acceptable for Pre 85 class are machines and COMPONENTS built up to and including the 1984 model.
If there is a carby that was available in 1984 (or earlier) it may also be able to be used.
-
My opinion is.
The key to it all is that the class is Pre 85.
GCR 16.15.13.1. Acceptable for Pre 85 class are machines and COMPONENTS built up to and including the 1984 model.
If there is a carby that was available in 1984 (or earlier) it may also be able to be used.
Were any Keihin 'PJ's or 'PWK's available in '84?
-
16.15.13.2
-
16.15.13.2
Yep read that, thanks. Were there any PJ's or PWK's available prior to 1985?
-
16.15.13.2
Yep read that, thanks. Were there any PJ's or PWK's available prior to 1985?
Nope, pj's in 85, pwk about 89
-
PWKs came on 1988 KXs, FWIW.
-
TM38 came out on a 82 RM250 legal in P5 road racing
-
Flat slide Keihin carbs were definitely fitted to Hondas prior to 1985.
This is a shot of one fitted to a 1984 Honda RC500:
(http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah84/msfracingcomponentsmus/Honda%20Minis/Flatslidecarbon84RC500_zpsac80b8c9.jpg)
-
Ah, but is it the same as the production 85 model PJ? It's visibly different to the 86+ PJ.
-
Flat slide Keihin carbs were definitely fitted to Hondas prior to 1985.
This is a shot of one fitted to a 1984 Honda RC500:
(http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah84/msfracingcomponentsmus/Honda%20Minis/Flatslidecarbon84RC500_zpsac80b8c9.jpg)
Was this pic taken in 1984?
-
That photo would be contemporary John, perhaps from a display at the AMA museum.
This one is from 84, Thorpes' RC500:
(http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah84/msfracingcomponentsmus/Flatslide1984RC500Thorpe_zps5a1fc443.jpg)
Another recent one:
(http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah84/msfracingcomponentsmus/Flatslide84RC500_zps92675c8e.jpg)
-
Ah, but is it the same as the production 85 model PJ? It's visibly different to the 86+ PJ.
Nathan, Mikuni VM's are a non issue for eligibility; they come in myriad variations..
-
But the rules specifically allow all sorts of round slides.
-
The relevant rule mentions components available in 1984.
There is no requirement for specific part numbered model identification
By the look of the carbies in the various photos they are die cast production parts, unlike the big black round slide mixers fitted on earlier HRC motocrossers.
GCR 16.15.13.1. Acceptable for Pre 85 class are machines and COMPONENTS built up to and including the 1984 model.
-
Thanks Momus, that's the carby I need to run on my Pre 85.
-
The 84 KX500 has a Mikuni TM 38-85 Flatslide as standard fit AFAIK.
-
When the rules "what is period", do they mean 'what was for sale on the general market in the period'?
-
Well if its standard fit on one bike in 84, then it's also an item that was "on the market" in 84.... making it legal to fit to any other bike in the class..... right?
-
When the rules "what is period", do they mean 'what was for sale on the general market in the period'?
The 13:1 rule is my guide: it makes no requirement for the wide availability of components.
It allows for Simon's USD forks and probably also opens the door for a legal watercooled 1984 CR500....
GCR 16.15.13.1. Acceptable for Pre 85 class are machines and COMPONENTS built up to and including the 1984 model.
-
The 84 KX500 has a Mikuni TM 38-85 Flatslide as standard fit AFAIK.
Ditto RM500's
-
The 84 KX500 has a Mikuni TM 38-85 Flatslide as standard fit AFAIK.
Ditto RM500's
That's it in a nutshell really. If ( and it was) the flatslide was available on ANY 1984 MXer then it is legal to run a flatslide on the Honda.
-
Yes no argument about running a 'Mikuni' as it came stock on RM's but were the Keihin PJ's & PWK's available for either retail sale or fitted to any bike in 1984 or earlier?
-
The relevant rule mentions components available in 1984.
There is no requirement for specific part numbered model identification
By the look of the carbies in the various photos they are die cast production parts, unlike the big black round slide mixers fitted on earlier HRC motocrossers.
GCR 16.15.13.1. Acceptable for Pre 85 class are machines and COMPONENTS built up to and including the 1984 model.
Correct.
The production 1985+ Keihin PJ was not available as a 1984 model part, therefore it is ineligible for Pre-85 racing.
The works 1984 Keihin flatslide is OK for Pre-85.
The production 1984 Mikuni flatslides are OK for Pre-85 (even on bikes that came with roundslides).
But there is a clear, visible difference between the 1984 works Keihin and the 1985+ production Keihin, which instantly excludes the 1985+ PJ.
It may be possible to submit a request to MA to allow the later production PJ to be accepted on the basis that it is operationally identical and visually very similar to the 84 works part. To give it a fighting chance of success, you'd want to have all the technical data of both works and production carbs, clearly and officially showing that the only difference is the fuel intake pipe.
But that different fuel intake pipe makes it obvious that the works and production carbs are NOT the same as each other.
-
Nathan - I thought MA ruled - a couple of years ago through a protest - that works parts were not legal because they were not readily available to the public? Are you talking "works" parts?
-
Nathan, Thorpes bike, number 3, has the standard left side vertical inlet for the fuel.
The other photo shows a redrilled inlet entering the same gallery. It is not a design difference, probably just a convenience allowing the very low right side of the tank to drain.
In all other visible respects, right down to the color scheme the carbies look production.
-
You guys amaze me. Again you are debating something as if what you say is it. Unless MA officially say a keihin flat slide is permitted in Pre 85 that is it. Now they came on the 85 model Hondas which were probably available late 84. So if you can find a 1984 keihin catalogue that has them for sale in 84, there is a good case for MA saying they can be used.
-
This article on Mahlherbe's 1984 HRC is from a Belgian or French magazine.
The inset photo of the engine is accompanied by the bold text that says the carburettor is identical to the production items.
There are other photos from 1984 showing Keihin advertising stickers on the HRC bikes
(http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah84/msfracingcomponentsmus/Flatslideinsetproduction_zpsf5b3039e.jpg)
(http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah84/msfracingcomponentsmus/FlatslideKeihininset_zps0e92350c.jpg)
-
Several pre 85 bikes raced the 2014 Toowoomba Nats with Keihin pwk carbs without any complaint from scrutineers or other competitors so people automatically assume they are legal..
-
Nathan, Thorpes bike, number 3, has the standard left side vertical inlet for the fuel.
The other photo shows a redrilled inlet entering the same gallery. It is not a design difference, probably just a convenience allowing the very low right side of the tank to drain.
In all other visible respects, right down to the color scheme the carbies look production.
The production PJs had the angled inlet. Can you prove that the angled inlet carbs existed in 1984? If not, can you prove that the vertical inlet and angled inlet are identical inside?
"The onus of proof is in the competitor".
---------
Ross, that would be very interesting. The written rules do NOT exclude works parts. VMX, like MX in the 1970s and 80s, do not specify production parts.
-
Nathan
I've written (emailed) to Keihin in Japan asking for information on the release dates and availability of their flat slide carbies.
I'm not holding my breath waiting though.
Judging from the period photos, and JohnnyO's helpful offering, it seems that the issue is pretty settled.
-
To take a step back, PJs are rubbish.
Given the choice between running a PJ carb and a night with Justine Clarke, or a Mikuni VM and a night with Bronwyn Bishop, I'd go for the VM and abstinence every single time.
-
What about Julie Bishop and a Jikov?
-
Is "die in a fire" an option?
-
I went to a lot of trouble to get my PJ running right, won't have an choice but to run it. Hope Nathan doesn't protest :) I'll just say it was off an RC500 ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
Nathan - hold your breath - I agree!! I did not think there was anything in the MOMS preventing use of works bits and pieces that could be bought - even full bikes if you were that lucky - however am aware (if I remember correctly) of a protest upheld and it went all the way to MA adjudication who came back with "since the parts were works and not available to the public" they could not be used - or similar - remember the failing memory ;D
-
Yes another topic settled till the gates drop :-X
-
Seriously......this is where punters get put off of racing at the "Nats". Who cares what Carby you run on your bike? Unless you have somehow managed to make a fuel injected 1984 CR500, is ANY
flatslide carby going to make that much of a difference to a round slide?
We all seem to forget that the least functional part of any motorcycle is the person controlling (or attempting to) the bike.
-
We all seem to forget that the least functional part of any motorcycle is the person controlling (or attempting to) the bike.
The rider should also be pre 1985 too then.
-
Seriously......this is where punters get put off of racing at the "Nats". Who cares what Carby you run on your bike? Unless you have somehow managed to make a fuel injected 1984 CR500, is ANY
flatslide carby going to make that much of a difference to a round slide?
We all seem to forget that the least functional part of any motorcycle is the person controlling (or attempting to) the bike.
+1 mate.
A lot of the punters that comment in here about "eligibility" don't even race....
-
And what happens if we throw out the rule book? ........ sexmax?
-
Nathan
I've written (emailed) to Keihin in Japan asking for information on the release dates and availability of their flat slide carbies.
I'm not holding my breath waiting though.
Judging from the period photos, and JohnnyO's helpful offering, it seems that the issue is pretty settled.
Please note several things.
1. If you could get a keihin flat slide carby off a 1984 works bike you could ask MA if you can use it.
2. Just because something went through scrutineering at one meeting (or championship) does not mean it can't be protested (within 30 minutes of the close of scrutineering).
3. Also GCR 16.15.13.1. Acceptable for Pre 85 class are machines and COMPONENTS built up to and including the 1984 model. It is COMPONENTS built up to and including the 1984 model. It could be argued that Model refers to the production bike.
My gut feeling is if keihin had the PJ carbies available for sale to the general public "MA may approve their use for Pre 85. So get the proof and submit it to MA.
Also this is from the 2014 MOMS so it may have changed.
16.11.1.2 The onus of proof of eligibility shall rest wholly upon the rider or entrant of the machine.
If in doubt ASK MA.
-
@ KTM427.
Why does MA have to be asked when they have published regulations?
The rules principle seems clear.
If the part was available in 1984 then it can be used.
There is no caveat prohibiting works parts or specifying a particular type of availability.
If a succesful appeal against the use of a part or component is going to set a precedent then the relevant rule should be re- written to reflect that.
There are many precedents from pre 1985 when works components or complete works bikes were run and if one of the categories aims is to faithfully reproduce history, rather than rewrite it the use of this stuff should be encouraged.
Anyway, judging from conversations and the evidence on scramble tracks, the issue of flat slide eligibility seems decided.
-
I don't want to seem a 'trouble maker' but, if I ride the National Titles and I spend a lot of time to get my stock carb sorted and if I just happen to get a 'place' and there is a a PJ or PWK on a bike in front of me, I'll be protesting. Hey it's a National Title, no friends when a 'sheep station' is on the line ;-)
-
Bob Hannah used a rear disc on his RC250 in 1983, they must be okay to use in pre 85 also then :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
http://moto.mpora.com/instagram/photos/777134986629929135_231371717
-
Bob Hannah used a rear disc on his RC250 in 1983, they must be okay to use in pre 85 also then :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
http://moto.mpora.com/instagram/photos/777134986629929135_231371717
If you had the works bits, or exact replicas then yes, it would be legal to run a rear disc in Pre-85.
-
Seriously......this is where punters get put off of racing at the "Nats". Who cares what Carby you run on your bike? Unless you have somehow managed to make a fuel injected 1984 CR500, is ANY
flatslide carby going to make that much of a difference to a round slide?
We all seem to forget that the least functional part of any motorcycle is the person controlling (or attempting to) the bike.
If we're not worried about bikes being historically valid, then what's the point of VMX?
-
The relevant rule mentions components available in 1984.
There is no requirement for specific part numbered model identification
By the look of the carbies in the various photos they are die cast production parts, unlike the big black round slide mixers fitted on earlier HRC motocrossers.
GCR 16.15.13.1. Acceptable for Pre 85 class are machines and COMPONENTS built up to and including the 1984 model.
This is it. It's not about names or numbers, it's about the parts.
Is an RX-8 motor the same as an RX-4 motor? They're both called "13B"... If the racing class specifies "Pre-1985", then how do you justify allowing a Renesis into that class?
It's the same as you're trying to do here.
PJs are pooh.
-
If you had the works bits, or exact replicas then yes, it would be legal to run a rear disc in Pre-85.
Unless the rules said that it was not legal to run a rear disk in Pre-85.
For example, when MA changed the rules for pre-78 to ban flat slides even though the Lectron had been available for years.
-
It would be poor sportsmanship for you to protest John, especially if PJ's are poo. Here I was thinking John was doing good for the sport! I do see the point that they may not be legal, still pretty f#*ked anyway.
-
It would be poor sportsmanship for you to protest John, especially if PJ's are poo. Here I was thinking John was doing good for the sport! I do see the point that they may not be legal, still pretty f#*ked anyway.
Well it is a title on the line, and if I go to the trouble to make the stock carb work, or I can ride fast enough with the stock round slide (that is even more poo), well too bad 'that's racing'.
It's just like the crap happening in Evo at the moment, I want to run my '84 43mm forks (which are poo) but can't .... we all live & die by the rules :-)
-
If we're not worried about bikes being historically valid, then what's the point of VMX?
-
If we're not worried about bikes being historically valid, then what's the point of VMX?
No body is trying to reinvent the wheel Nathan. I just don't see all the fuss about what carburetor is on an '84 CR. The Lectron flatslide was available way before 1985. And also of note is the fact that the early to mid 80's was the period when the factories were at the peak of war with the works bikes. Is it not plausible that the tradition continues today?
I didn't think I'd ever read from John O that he would protest against another machine over a simple component like a carby. Flatslides were available in 1984 and to me, that is the end of the debate, regardless of what brand the carby is.
Why is that I can go and buy a BRAND NEW flatslide Mikuni or Lectron today and fit it to my CR250RE but I cant use a PJ or PWK simply because of it's name and date of introduction to machines available to the public?
Protest all you want John. I think you will be wasting your money and the officials time.
-
Because its date of introduction does not comply to the Era's completion date.
Pretty simple stuff really
-
what about suspension? as long as its got the correst axle travel and mounting, look at the shocks we are useing, way better than the works gear back in the day ;) :-X
-
Shocks on twin shock bikes were always a consumable, and the rules were specifically written to accommodate this while keeping the travel restricted (in the relevant classes).
Those rules probably never really considered the possibility of the sorts of shocks that are easily available now, but - unlike the carby regs - they specifically allowed newer parts to be fitted.
-
Because its date of introduction does not comply to the Era's completion date.
Pretty simple stuff really
Explain how it is simple stuff Ted..... Us mere mortals seem to have a hard time keeping up with you super humans that seem to able to dictate what is right and what is wrong with the typing of a few, non descriptive words.
Nathan, what the hell has shocks got to do with this current discussion? Seems when ever you are stuck for an argument you change tact. Get into sailing buddy. They forever have to go port and starboard.
Get back to the facts.....Flatslide Mikuni's, Lectrons, and Keihins were all available before 30.12.1985. IF you had the coin to do so, anybody could walk into a dealership and buy their choice of carby to "update" from public specification to what the factory guys are (were) using.
-
I've said it before and I will use the opportunity to say it again. Not 1 individual protested against Bells bike in '09 with USD forks, flatslide carby, Ohlins rear shock and oversized front wave disc rotor......
-
TBM, Pre 85 finishes at the end of 84, not the 30/12/1985. I guess that's why it's called PRE ( precedes) 85
Nathan, you are right again. Looks like the Sexmax could be the only truly eligible bike in VMX ;D ;D
-
TBM, Pre 85 finishes at the end of 84, not the 30/12/1985. I guess that's why it's called PRE ( precedes) 85
Obviously a mistook Teddles. Yet again, looking for semantics in an attempt to validate your feeble attempts at justifying your argument. How the hell can a sexmax or tedmax even be considered legal yet a simple carby cannot?
-
Nathan, what the hell has shocks got to do with this current discussion? Seems when ever you are stuck for an argument you change tact. Get into sailing buddy. They forever have to go port and starboard.
Get back to the facts.....Flatslide Mikuni's, Lectrons, and Keihins were all available before 30.12.1985. IF you had the coin to do so, anybody could walk into a dealership and buy their choice of carby to "update" from public specification to what the factory guys are (were) using.
I was replying to shelpi's post directly ahead of mine.
You could not buy a Keihin PJ in 1984. THAT is why they are not legal in Pre-85.
-
ALL of the VMX classes apart from Evo, are defined by year cut offs for major components. We
If a PJ or PWK carb is OK for pre-85, then why aren't cartridge forks or 88 model rear discs or 1987 model bikes?
Because they're not pre-85 parts!
It's not semantics, it's about having a class that has a reason for existing.
-
ALL of the VMX classes apart from Evo, are defined by year cut offs for major components. We
If a PJ or PWK carb is OK for pre-85, then why aren't cartridge forks or 88 model rear discs or 1987 model bikes?
Because they're not pre-85 parts!
It's not semantics, it's about having a class that has a reason for existing.
Correct :-)
One set of legal 43mm forks in Evo does not make all 43mm forks legal, a couple of legal flatslide carbs in Pre 85 does not make all flatslides legal.
-
Protest all you want John. I think you will be wasting your money and the officials time.
I guess we'll have to wait and see, first to see if I can get up near the front, and then whether anyone decides to run something that is not Pre 85 with regards carbs, when the MOMS say that carbs must be 'Pre 85'?
I'm not against spoiling the sport, I do all I can to help the sport but if there is a defined rule, if I want to play, I will stick to them. If you don't like the rules, you are complaining to the wrong bloke ;-)
-
TBM, Pre 85 finishes at the end of 84, not the 30/12/1985. I guess that's why it's called PRE ( precedes) 85
Obviously a mistook Teddles. Yet again, looking for semantics in an attempt to validate your feeble attempts at justifying your argument. How the hell can a sexmax or tedmax even be considered legal yet a simple carby cannot?
I'm not attempting to validate an argument. I was just saying when Pre 85 finished. A fact. Unlike your stated fact that it finished Pre 86.
If you are going to write things and mention the word fact you best know them before hand. It will add some weight to what you are trying to say ::)
As John said, ask Tanner why a 88 carby can't go on a 84 bike and while you're there ask him to explain the Sexmax. After all you wanted it ;D
-
Gee, I should have protested the bike Bell rode in 09, I would have won Bahahaha. Can someone please find me the time and money to set up a period correct carby just so I can beat these bastards. My opinion is the competition and specticle of full grids is worth overlooking some eligibility discrepencies just like I did in 09. F#*k me if you looked close enough most bikes would be booted out. Tell me again why 3 major events I entered in the last 3 year were cancelled thru lack of numbers!!!
-
^^^^^^^^^ Agreed, let's get the rules changed :-)
-
Mikuni VM = work well, easy to sort, parts everywhere, and entirely legal.
-
the KTM guys must be laughing (quitely ;)) delorto VHSB 37 :P
-
the KTM guys must be laughing (quitely ;)) delorto VHSB 37 :P
shhhhhh Mick enough of that what they don't know won't hurt them ;)
-
The relevant rule mentions components available in 1984.
There is no requirement for specific part numbered model identification
By the look of the carbies in the various photos they are die cast production parts, unlike the big black round slide mixers fitted on earlier HRC motocrossers.
GCR 16.15.13.1. Acceptable for Pre 85 class are machines and COMPONENTS built up to and including the 1984 model.
This is it. It's not about names or numbers, it's about the parts.
Is an RX-8 motor the same as an RX-4 motor? They're both called "13B"... If the racing class specifies "Pre-1985", then how do you justify allowing a Renesis into that class?
It's the same as you're trying to do here.
PJs are pooh.
I don't know if the Mazda rotary engine comparison works Nathan. A lot of people think that the side inlet and exhaust ports on the later engine makes it inferior for race power production compared to the earlier side/peripheral setup.
-
the KTM guys must be laughing (quitely ;)) delorto VHSB 37 :P
shhhhhh Mick enough of that what they don't know won't hurt them ;)
Lozza, despite having the external appearance of a round slide unit the VHSB 37 is functionally a flat slide carburettor is it not?
-
My opinion is the competition and specticle of full grids is worth overlooking some eligibility discrepencies just like I did in 09. F#*k me if you looked close enough most bikes would be booted out. Tell me again why 3 major events I entered in the last 3 year were cancelled thru lack of numbers!!!
And therein lays my point. I know the cut off date is 30.12.1984, despite what others may want to argue. Shoot me, I pressed the wrong key.....
The fact of the matter is, a carburetor is hardly going to detract from how the bike looked in the day, unlike the CR that Bell rode in 09 that no one protested. And for the record, I wasn't racing a pre85 bike then so whilst I thought the bike was totally out of place, it didn't affect me.
Nathan, I do agree that the PJ Kehein wasn't available ON THE BIKE in 1984, BUT, It was on the 1985 CR250RF which was released late in 1984. From memory, I got my NEW CR250RF in October 1984.....
-
I don't know if the Mazda rotary engine comparison works Nathan. A lot of people think that the side inlet and exhaust ports on the later engine makes it inferior for race power production compared to the earlier side/peripheral setup.
Just as the PJ is inferior to the VM...
Either way, the point was about age eligibility, and the newer part fails the age test.
-
Nathan, I do agree that the PJ Kehein wasn't available ON THE BIKE in 1984, BUT, It was on the 1985 CR250RF which was released late in 1984. From memory, I got my NEW CR250RF in October 1985.....
It's all about the year models...
If the 1985 Keihin PJ is legal for Pre-85, then so is the whole 1985 Honda it came on...
-
Nathan, I do agree that the PJ Kehein wasn't available ON THE BIKE in 1984, BUT, It was on the 1985 CR250RF which was released late in 1984. From memory, I got my NEW CR250RF in October 1985.....
It's all about the year models...
If the 1985 Keihin PJ is legal for Pre-85, then so is the whole 1985 Honda it came on...
Yep
-
@ KTM427.
Why does MA have to be asked when they have published regulations? MA should be asked because it is their rule book and they administer the sport. Also I received an official email which says that
The rules principle seems clear. They don't seem clear to the majority
If the part was available in 1984 then it can be used. In my opinion if it was available to the public it may be able to be approved to be used.
Also if someone wants to protest machine eligibility I suggest you do it within thirty minutes of the close of scrutineering.
-
the KTM guys must be laughing (quitely ;)) delorto VHSB 37 :P
shhhhhh Mick enough of that what they don't know won't hurt them ;)
Lozza, despite having the external appearance of a round slide unit the VHSB 37 is functionally a flat slide carburettor is it not?
Yep first made 87 I think PHSB is the round slide equivalent and PHBE the old school version that takes the U series needles.
(http://www.dellorto.co.uk/images/parts/PHSB.jpg)
-
Yep first made 87 I think PHSB is the round slide equivalent and PHBE the old school version that takes the U series needles.
So probably not another flatslide available in 1984.
-
Gardner remote bowl flatslides were available in the late 50's early 60's
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-z5iEw4QBzIw/Toy9tdEP0ZI/AAAAAAAAAEk/MCEGhCT18DA/s1600/Gardner+Carb+3.jpg)
-
Nathan, I do agree that the PJ Kehein wasn't available ON THE BIKE in 1984, BUT, It was on the 1985 CR250RF which was released late in 1984. From memory, I got my NEW CR250RF in October 1985.....
It's all about the year models...
If the 1985 Keihin PJ is legal for Pre-85, then so is the whole 1985 Honda it came on...
There I go pressing the wrong friggin key again without reading what I type.... I got my CR250RF in October 1984....
I think the whole bike isn't eligible because the frame tag had 1985 as the model year.. Other than that, it was a pre85 bike!
-
If the manufacturer designates that particular model as a 1985 it is not eligible for pre 85 regardless of when it was available/ complience plate
-
The key point is that the component in question, a Keihin flat slide carb, was readily available in 1984.
Anyone could have bought a CR250F carb from a Honda dealer late in 1984 and fitted it to a 500RE.
-
So....we just need a part listing dated 1984? Bugger this, I have found a Mikuni VM, can someone please tell me the setup for a 83 KX500? NOW the pipe drama, when I first built my bike there were no pipes to be found (GMC) wasn't making them then. After spending over 12 months to design, build and modify a chamber that was finally rideable I would be very dark if someone protested that it doesn't follow original lines!!! Neither did downpipes but they were used in the day on post classics.
-
Pipes have never been an issue. Don't worry about that. Worry more about whether you like your PJ enough to run with the pre-90 bikes.
------
The fact that Keihin made a PJ carb in 1984 is irrelevant if it was a 1985 model part.
The fact that Keihin made a flat slide in 1984 (as a 1984 "model" works part) is irrelevant if it was different to the 1985 model part that you want to use.
-
(http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah84/msfracingcomponentsmus/FlatslideCR250F1985_zpsa1daa8eb.jpg)
It has already been established courtesy of that post showing the period French language magazine article that HRC 500 cc motocrossers used Keihin flat slide carbies identical to production items (presumably those destined for the CR250).
In other words you could buy a 500RC carby from your local Honda dealer.
-
It has already been established courtesy of that post showing the period French language magazine article that HRC 500 cc motocrossers used Keihin flat slide carbies identical to production items (presumably those destined for the CR250).
In other words you could buy a 500RC carby from your local Honda dealer.
No, it has not been "established". You've posted up some photos, that show a carby that appears to be externally similar.
The burden of proof is yours, and is far more than you've managed.
There's no disputing that there were Keihin flatslides on 1984 RC500s.
The issue is how closely related they are to the production 1985 Keihin PJs - material, design and throat size.
If you can PROVE that they are the IDENTICAL, then I'll go from your biggest sceptic to a clear supporter - but until then...
-
just to satisfy the guru, there is no more onus of proof required, just like the new evo rules, just run it, as I'm sure whoever is the eligibility scrutineer will have all the facts at hand to make the judgment required.
I think this has to be my last post, as the guru's continue to push their agenda's and must have the last word, I will make it mine.
enjoy yourselves and thanks to Graham for the journey, Cheers
-
The fact that Keihin made a PJ carb in 1984 is irrelevant if it was a 1985 model part.
The fact that Keihin made a flat slide in 1984 (as a 1984 "model" works part) is irrelevant if it was different to the 1985 model part that you want to use.
[/quote]
How the hell it is irrelevant Nathan is beyond me. I have proven that the part in question, A PJ Keihin flatslide carby was indeed available prior to the 30/12/1984 cut off date for pre85 machines. Just because it is different to what was on the CR500RE at the time IS IRRELEVANT. A VM Mikuni or Lectron didn't come out on the said bike either. You argue your own arguments.
Thank christ you're not an eligibility scrutineer or we would all be stuck with stock standard bikes. Something which NEVER happened in the day.
The key point is that the component in question, a Keihin flat slide carb, was readily available in 1984.
Anyone could have bought a CR250F carb from a Honda dealer late in 1984 and fitted it to a 500RE.
And that Nathan, IS THE RELEVANT POINT.
No more from me. I'm tired of trying to make a clear and concise point with a know it all.....
-
Well sod it then: I may as well run my 2013 Beta in Pre-85 because there was water cooling, double discs and Keihin flatslides in 1984 too... ::)
My "agenda" is to be a part of a sport that has a reason for existing, and have rules that both support those reasons and can be enforced.
Makes me wonder what sort of agendas are offended by this...
By the way, this is from the 2015 MoMS, downloaded 10:29am this morning:
16.11.1.2
The onus of proof of eligibility shall rest
wholly upon the rider or entrant of the
machine. Service and parts manual
publication dates are not proof of eligibility.
-
How the hell it is irrelevant Nathan is beyond me. I have proven that the part in question, A PJ Keihin flatslide carby was indeed available prior to the 30/12/1984 cut off date for pre85 machines. Just because it is different to what was on the CR500RE at the time IS IRRELEVANT. A VM Mikuni or Lectron didn't come out on the said bike either. You argue your own arguments.
Thank christ you're not an eligibility scrutineer or we would all be stuck with stock standard bikes. Something which NEVER happened in the day.
The key point is that the component in question, a Keihin flat slide carb, was readily available in 1984.
Anyone could have bought a CR250F carb from a Honda dealer late in 1984 and fitted it to a 500RE.
And that Nathan, IS THE RELEVANT POINT.
No more from me. I'm tired of trying to make a clear and concise point with a know it all.....
This discussion is annoying you, because you are wrong. This is not a matter of opinion, you are trying to dispute some of the clearest and least ambiguous parts of the CMX regs.
Here are the current regs, with the relevant bits in bold:
16.15.13 Acceptable machines and components: Pre 85 Solo
16.15.13.1 Acceptable for the pre 85 class are machines and components built up to and including the 1984 model. The only exception to this rule is where the model remains unaltered after this date.
16.15.13.2 Carburettors; period flat slide carburettors and any round slide carburettor may be used.
16.15.13.3 Engines and gearboxes must remain externally unchanged.
[16.15.13.4] All machines will be fitted with an effective muffler and comply with sound control regulations in GCR 16.12.
16.15.13.5 Folding footrests must be fitted.
16.15.13.6 Countershaft sprocket covers will be fitted.
16.15.13.7 The handlebars must be equipped with a protection pad on the cross bar.
Handlebars not fitted with a cross bar must be equipped with a protection pad located in the middle of the handlebars covering the handlebar clamps.
It is really very simple: If the 85 model PJ is not "unaltered" from the 1984 model part, then is does not meet the rules. Simple as that, and no amount of calling me names will change that.
Its not about making people run stock bikes. Its about making sure people are using parts that existed in 1984.
Edit for FireKwaka:
The part about the exhaust 'following original lines' was removed for 2015. Rest easy.
-
and you could never buy RC parts from your local Honda dealer either that I am aware of?
-
So....we just need a part listing dated 1984? Bugger this, I have found a Mikuni VM, can someone please tell me the setup for a 83 KX500? NOW the pipe drama, when I first built my bike there were no pipes to be found (GMC) wasn't making them then. After spending over 12 months to design, build and modify a chamber that was finally rideable I would be very dark if someone protested that it doesn't follow original lines!!! Neither did downpipes but they were used in the day on post classics.
That rule no longer exists in the 2015 MOMS. The facts are the old rule was not being enforced. eg 1977 Maicos with wheelsmith pipes and any Dirt Track bike with a down pipe instead of the standard pipe.
-
The way i look at it is for any given year cut off based class you can use any period aftermarket/accessory parts (if you can prove you could buy it back in the day then) that were available up until yr cut off. In this case anything you could walk into a shop and buy up to dec 31 1984. Now there are exceptions of course for some classes eg period water cooled heads in Pre 78 which are not allowed but were available.
But when it comes to OEM parts, its a bit different, and you cant use any OEM parts off a 1985 model, even if you could buy that model late in 1984.
If you could buy these Keihin flat slides as an aftermarket part in late 84 then they would be allowed, but from what i am reading they were only available as a Honda OEM part originally intended for a 1985 model bike so it seems pretty logical to me that they are not allowed, otherwise almost all parts from a 1985 model bike would be allowed in pre 85 as you could buy the 1985 models in 1984. If the Keihin is allowed in pre 85 then so would 1985 RM-F disc front ends as you could buy a 85 RM in late 84 but thats not how the rules work.
So a simple way to look at it is for pre 85 racing
you can use any period aftermarket part available up 31/12/84
you can use any any OEM part from from a 1984 model bike but not from a 1985 model bike.
-
and you could never buy RC parts from your local Honda dealer either that I am aware of?
According to what the rules say, there's no restriction on Works parts. If there's been a proper MA determination on this matter, I'd be interested to hear the details.
There was no restriction on works parts/bikes competing in modern MX, or any form of production rule. It would seem odd to retrospectively turn VMX into a production bike class, particularly when we have specifically welcomed and even encouraged custom, low volume parts over the history of VMX.
Add in the difficulty of writing and enforcing rules that kick out true "works parts" without also kicking out the rare aftermarket stuff and/or GMC's CZ frames*, and I can't help but think that the "no works parts" rule doesn't really exist (regardless of any previous advice).
*The GMC HL500 frames are OK, because Evo class stuff can be unashamedly 2015 model.
-
(http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah84/msfracingcomponentsmus/FlatslideCR250F1985_zpsa1daa8eb.jpg)
It has already been established courtesy of that post showing the period French language magazine article that HRC 500 cc motocrossers used Keihin flat slide carbies identical to production items (presumably those destined for the CR250).
In other words you could buy a 500RC carby from your local Honda dealer.
All this shows is that the carby was for a 1985 model bike and therefore not eligible for Pre 85. Even if the carby was available from a Honda dealer late 1984 it would be as a spare part for a 1985 model bike.
So anything that is a spare part for a 1985 model bike should not be considered eligible (in my opinion).
-
I'm with Nathan here. Well not with him, but you get the idea ... :o
The way I read ' components built up to and including the 1984 model ' doesn't mean "parts available in 1984" or "parts available up to 31Dec 1984" at all.
It means components built up to and including the 1984 model ! ie: parts that were actually available late 1983 !
Thats how I read it anyway....... but I'm just a dumb Aircraft mechanic..... :P
-
Fair enough that parts for 85 models shouldn't be allowed however I am still clinging to the 84 CR500 ran a standard PJ. If someone showed up with such a bike would they be turned away or protested, I should hope not.
-
I'm with Nathan here. Well not with him, but you get the idea ... :o
The way I read ' components built up to and including the 1984 model ' doesn't mean "parts available in 1984" or "parts available up to 31Dec 1984" at all.
It means components built up to and including the 1984 model ! ie: parts that were actually available late 1983 !
Thats how I read it anyway....... but I'm just a dumb Aircraft mechanic..... :P
Hey Roger imagine if someone actually fully restored a beautiful 1985 CR 250 to ride in Pre 85. Now that would be one really dumb mutha forka ;D :D ;D :D I crack myself up ;D ;D ;D
-
So what we are saying is, you can't use an RM125C alloy swingarm on an RM125B in Pre 78 ? ;-) lol
-
So what we are saying is, you can't use an RM125C alloy swingarm on an RM125B in Pre 78 ? ;-) lol
Correct? Also can't use the rubber mounted bars, pivoting brake stay arm etc.
-
Fair enough that parts for 85 models shouldn't be allowed however I am still clinging to the 84 CR500 ran a standard PJ. If someone showed up with such a bike would they be turned away or protested, I should hope not.
They would be promoted to the Pre-90 class.
And the 1984 Honda CR500RE did not come with a Keihin PJ carb standard. It came with a Keihin PE roundslide.
http://www.mrcycles.com/oemparts/a/hon/506bdd66f870023420a27bd6/carburetor
-
Another typo, I meant RC500
-
Another typo, I meant RC500
Ok, then that's up to you to prove - and "they look pretty much the same" isn't enough.
Like I said, if you can prove that the 84 RC500 carbs are the same as the 85 production PJs, then I will be happy to reverse my position.
-
Maybe the Australian (Show & Go) or American (Sudco) distributors might be able to confirm that the PJ38 was available for retail sale in 1984?
-
Is this all about getting extra horsepower out of a 500 2T or getting your 500 to run right?
If its about getting your 500 to run right, and you have an unlimited budget, I can give you two guys phone numbers that will come to the track on race days and guarantee that you will achieve that.
If its about getting more power out of a 500 I suggest you suddenly lose thirty years of wear and tear on your bodies, train 24/7 and find the balls of a mastodon. Coz you're gonna need them.
-
Maybe the Australian (Show & Go) or American (Sudco) distributors might be able to confirm that the PJ38 was available for retail sale in 1984?
Pj's suck anyway.
I like my round slide on my 84 heaps better than the Pj on my 89
-
They may suck but its on there and it works so if there is a chance of it staying I'm a happy VMXer.
-
I'm with Nathan here. Well not with him, but you get the idea ... :o
The way I read ' components built up to and including the 1984 model ' doesn't mean "parts available in 1984" or "parts available up to 31Dec 1984" at all.
It means components built up to and including the 1984 model ! ie: parts that were actually available late 1983 !
Thats how I read it anyway....... but I'm just a dumb Aircraft mechanic..... :P
Hey Roger imagine if someone actually fully restored a beautiful 1985 CR 250 to ride in Pre 85. Now that would be one really dumb mutha forka ;D :D ;D :D I crack myself up ;D ;D ;D
haha... smarty pants..
You referring to this one?
(http://p1.bikepics.com/2010/09/07/bikepics-2055526-800.jpg)
(http://p1.bikepics.com/2010/09/07/bikepics-2055519-800.jpg)
-
Nathan - if your last comment re works parts was in regard to my last comment - I wasn't going down that route - just arguing that if a particular part was available on an RC in 84 did not mean it was available at the local Honda dealer for the rest of us. Not whether works parts could be used or not.
-
I can picture a hoard of self appointed eligibility scrutineers in spectacles & white coats skulking around the pits taking notes, disqualifying bikes for incorrect carbs, forks, seat covers, nuts, bolts & split spins. Then I can see them skwarking blue murder after being punched in the face that's it's all in the spirit of VMX. Too bad these types seem to have forgotten about actual VMX racing, where someone has to get on a bike & ride it to participate in a VMX race. I get beaten all the time in VMX, but it isn't because the guys in front of me have later model forks, carbs or safety seats, it's because they can ride better than me. Another thread to the detriment of the sport for those who haven't already had enough of the BS.
What a load of crock! No wonder VMX is suffering as a whole.
If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it is a duck, isn't it?
Try not to get too bent out of shape you guys, it's just my opinion.
K
-
Ross, my post was just a comment that was prompted by your comment, but not a specific response to it. Sorry if it sounded like I was having a to at you - not my intention at all (although, now that I've re-read, I recognise that it sounds like I might have been).
-
I can picture a hoard of self appointed eligibility scrutineers in spectacles & white coats skulking around the pits taking notes, disqualifying bikes for incorrect carbs, forks, seat covers, nuts, bolts & split spins. Then I can see them skwarking blue murder after being punched in the face that's it's all in the spirit of VMX. Too bad these types seem to have forgotten about actual VMX racing, where someone has to get on a bike & ride it to participate in a VMX race. I get beaten all the time in VMX, but it isn't because the guys in front of me have later model forks, carbs or safety seats, it's because they can ride better than me. Another thread to the detriment of the sport for those who haven't already had enough of the BS.
What a load of crock! No wonder VMX is suffering as a whole.
If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it is a duck, isn't it?
Try not to get too bent out of shape you guys, it's just my opinion.
K
+1 K
-
+2 BigK
-
We're not talking about people who don't know better.
We're not talking about people who are "making do" because they can't find/afford an unobtainable part.
We're not talking about sending them home - the worst that would happen is that they are moved into Pre-90.
We ARE talking about people who are choosing to break the rules by using newer components.
There is no room for emotional blackmail here: you turn up with a legit Pre-85 bike if riding Pre-84 matters to you. If having a PJ carb on your 1984 model bike matters more, then you ride Pre-90.
You make your own choice.
If we don't care about too-new carbies, then where do we draw the line? Are late-80s cartridge forks OK too? Maybe just fitting a 99 YZ250 motor to a YZ250K is OK? Maybe a whole 02 YZ250 is ok for Pre-85 if it has the 1984 graphics and colour scheme on it?
For the record: If a newb turned up to a club day with a PJ (or PWK or TMX or...) on their Pre-85 bike, I'd be strongly in favour of a blind eye being turned for that event.
But that is not the scenario we are talking about here.
-
Or we could follow New Zealand vmx way and go pre 86 problem solved with the carby thing .
But then some might want to put a 86 carb on a 85 bike ? When does it end i spose
-
LOL Mick... yeah and then some would argue that the 86 KX's had rear disc, therefore the Discs could be bought in 85.....bla bla bla ...
Just get on em, twist the throttle (coupled to a good carby... :o) and ride !
-
Lets apply the pundits rationale to not only bikes but the riders as well. We'll use EVO for this particular case:
Given that the last commercially available EVO bike able to be purchased in Australia was a 1984 Husqvarna CR500 (there may well be others, but this will suffice for the moment) & that you had to be 16 years old in 1984 to ride a senior race, I put it to you that the minimum age for someone to race the EVO class at national level in 2015 should be 47 years old. Age of bike plus 16 years. Some will say that's absurd, but no more absurd than the rule book racing that's happening on here.
This rule will put a lot of bikes on the side lines with those that don't comply to the proposed bike rules. There are quite a few who build bikes and then put an 18 year old gun to ride them at a National event just to get a $2 trophy.
So you ask why this rider age rule? Just like you don't like me riding an evo bike with something not quite EVO legal in your mind, I don't like you putting a super fast kid on a bike that said kid has no affiliation to other than to win a trophy for the bike builder.
Just a thought.
K
-
Lets apply the pundits rationale to not only bikes but the riders as well. We'll use EVO for this particular case:
Given that the last commercially available EVO bike able to be purchased in Australia was a 1984 Husqvarna CR500 (there may well be others, but this will suffice for the moment) & that you had to be 16 years old in 1984 to ride a senior race, I put it to you that the minimum age for someone to race the EVO class at national level in 2015 should be 47 years old. Age of bike plus 16 years. Some will say that's absurd, but no more absurd than the rule book racing that's happening on here.
This rule will put a lot of bikes on the side lines with those that don't comply to the proposed bike rules. There are quite a few who build bikes and then put an 18 year old gun to ride them at a National event just to get a $2 trophy.
So you ask why this rider age rule? Just like you don't like me riding an evo bike with something not quite EVO legal in your mind, I don't like you putting a super fast kid on a bike that said kid has no affiliation to other than to win a trophy for the bike builder.
Just a thought.
K
I like what your saying, so like you are running a 1985 carby in Pre85 straight to Pre90 you go! if your running a 18 year old they go straight to under ??????? what age section
Trouble is half the field of riders I ride with are gone :-\ at least I'd be garenteed a position on the podium ;)
-
Gold
-
Jebus Bigk.
The Pre-85 VMX class is fundamentally defined as being 1984 (and older) models.
What the hell is the point of having a "Pre-1985" class if we welcome major components that didn't exist in the day?
Like I said, we're not talking about blokes making mistakes through ignorance or making do.
Anyone who turns up with a Pre-85 bike with a PJ from now, is consciously breaking the rules in pursuit of a performance improvement.
No amount of red herrings will change that.
And let's no forget that a new Mikuni VM is under $200 delivered with ballpark jetting, and is 100% Pre-85 legal.
-
I propose the Ground Hog day rule.
For those that want it to be exactly like it was in the day with the introduction of the following years bikes being available late in the preceding year I say we allow 85 model bikes to ride in Pre84 and 90 model bikes to ride in Pre90, but only during the months of October to December.
Once it clicks over to January again you must revert back to your 84 / 89 model bike until the next October
-
Lets apply the pundits rationale to not only bikes but the riders as well. We'll use EVO for this particular case:
Given that the last commercially available EVO bike able to be purchased in Australia was a 1984 Husqvarna CR500 (there may well be others, but this will suffice for the moment) & that you had to be 16 years old in 1984 to ride a senior race, I put it to you that the minimum age for someone to race the EVO class at national level in 2015 should be 47 years old. Age of bike plus 16 years. Some will say that's absurd, but no more absurd than the rule book racing that's happening on here.
This rule will put a lot of bikes on the side lines with those that don't comply to the proposed bike rules. There are quite a few who build bikes and then put an 18 year old gun to ride them at a National event just to get a $2 trophy.
So you ask why this rider age rule? Just like you don't like me riding an evo bike with something not quite EVO legal in your mind, I don't like you putting a super fast kid on a bike that said kid has no affiliation to other than to win a trophy for the bike builder.
Just a thought.
K
I agree BigK we should have age groups in the EVO class.
Oh I forgot we have got age groups!!!!!!!
The Championship is for the class of bike (not class of bike and rider). If you want it changed send in a rule proposal for the next Annual Commission meeting.
Now lets get back to what was asked.
In my opinion the keihin flat slide carbies are not legal for Pre 85. If keihin (through Show & Go etc) can show that they were available for sale to the public in 1984, and not just as a spare part for the 1985 model Honda. Then maybe they could be considered (by MA) to be legal for Pre 85.
Also Eligibility Scrutineers are not self appointed and to my knowledge would not go walking around the pits.
Also please note the biggest problem seems to be that everyone thinks there is two sets of rules.
One for Championships and another for Club Days.
WRONG, WRONG WRONG!!!!!
-
My mistake, I was under the impression there were lots of eligibility "experts" on this forum.
K
-
My mistake, I was under the impression there were lots of eligibility "experts" on this forum.
K
I never realised that it required an 'expert' to understand that "Pre-85" means "before 1985".
-
Hands up all those who want to ban reproduction plastics produced after 95, or or how bout any bike with a replacement piston that's not standard or or how bout any bike with non standard tyres. Hell this could go on forever ::)
-
My mistake, I was under the impression there were lots of eligibility "experts" on this forum.
K
There are a lot of X Spurts on the forum.
-
In my opinion the keihin flat slide carbies are not legal for Pre 85. If keihin (through Show & Go etc) can show that they were available for sale to the public in 1984, and not just as a spare part for the 1985 model Honda. Then maybe they could be considered (by MA) to be legal for Pre 85.
The spare part Keihins flat slides for the 1985 250 were just as available through a Honda dealer as they would have been from a vendor who bought them wholesale to sell.
My information, and not all of it is presented here ;) is that these readily available in 1984 carbs are identical to the RC500 items, apart from permissible differences in the sizes of calibrating parts.
When I bought my 84 CR500 last year I had been away from MX for a long time- I hadn't raced for 37 years- the bike had a flat slide on it which I assumed was the standard carb because the others 500's I had looked at had the same.
The thing that looked most out of whack were the fat handlebars and the cobby Pro Taper double adaptors
-
Hands up all those who want to ban reproduction plastics produced after 95, or or how bout any bike with a replacement piston that's not standard or or how bout any bike with non standard tyres. Hell this could go on forever ::)
This is another 'argument' designed to do nothing more than muddy a very clear point.
Pistons, tyres and plastics are consumable parts, and the supply of original parts is far too limited to demand them.
In the case of pistons and plastics, the replacement parts will usually meet the criteria of carry-over parts in any case.
None of this is relevant to carb swaps. There's still a decent supply of decent used PE carbs, and you can still buy VMs new.
The ONLY argument for fitting a later flat slide is performance.
------------
Marcus, I've already said that if you can prove that the production PJ is the same as the works 84 carbs, you stand a decent chance of having the production PJ allowed as a Pre-85 part.
But what you've presented here is highly unlikely to be enough to get a submission approved.
-
I can smell dumbgeon not far away ;D
-
This can go on forever. There's no 1st place trophy for the guy who knows the rule book back to front. Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one, me included. Common sense is what's needed in all VMX classes, not the rants of rule book zealots. Keep on with it & VMX will go the way of the dinosaur as no-one will be bothered. It has to be easier to comply & compete, not harder as some people seem to want.
K
-
This can go on forever. There's no 1st place trophy for the guy who knows the rule book back to front. Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one, me included. Common sense is what's needed in all VMX classes, not the rants of rule book zealots. Keep on with it & VMX will go the way of the dinosaur as no-one will be bothered. It has to be easier to comply & compete, not harder as some people seem to want.
K
I mostly agree. The flip side is "what's the point if we let everything in"?
If we were talking about Maico magnesium brake plates or RM370 rear hubs or any of the other unobtanium stuff, then I'm all for "let it be" - forcing people to use 100% stock stuff is bad for the sport.
But Keihin flatslides in Pre-85 is not about safety, or parts availability, or cost. It is about using non-period parts to enhance performance.
And that directly undermines the whole point of VMX.
-
This can go on forever. There's no 1st place trophy for the guy who knows the rule book back to front. Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one, me included. Common sense is what's needed in all VMX classes, not the rants of rule book zealots. Keep on with it & VMX will go the way of the dinosaur as no-one will be bothered. It has to be easier to comply & compete, not harder as some people seem to want.
K
I thought there was a 1st place trophy for whoever gets the last post.
As I have said before the problem is riders have been let get away with parts/components that aren't correct and when someone buys a bike in good faith they sometimes get caught out.
Maybe some leeway is needed but how much and where do you stop is the difficult question.
The facts are the current rules (unlike the Historic Road Race rules) make no allowance for replacement or reproduction parts and they should.
I have already given my thoughts on the carby, so find the proof and submit it to MA.
-
The rules have to be interpreted with a flexibility that facilitates participation.
I have to admit at being surprised at how small fields are at some meetings (CSC) and this is an observation, not a criticism of hard working and dedicated club people.
I won't argue for rear disc brakes or watercooling on a 84 CR500 but an 80's carby on an 80's bike shouldn't have to cause an unfit, slow 56 year old the additional worry of wondering if he will be sent home in disgrace for an eligibility infraction.
I am very aware of the part that riding ability/age plays in race competitiveness compared to machine- it is about 90/10. A better carburetting bike for me is one that tractors from low rpm in a higher gear and for this the flat slide jigger is better than the round slide Keihin. It might add 1 or 2 percentage points to my chances; so 88/12 rider machine.
Who really knows or cares though when you are on the scramble track?
-
I can picture a hoard of self appointed eligibility scrutineers in spectacles & white coats skulking around the pits taking notes, disqualifying bikes for incorrect carbs, forks, seat covers, nuts, bolts & split spins. Then I can see them skwarking blue murder after being punched in the face that's it's all in the spirit of VMX. Too bad these types seem to have forgotten about actual VMX racing, where someone has to get on a bike & ride it to participate in a VMX race. I get beaten all the time in VMX, but it isn't because the guys in front of me have later model forks, carbs or safety seats, it's because they can ride better than me. Another thread to the detriment of the sport for those who haven't already had enough of the BS.
What a load of crock! No wonder VMX is suffering as a whole.
If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it is a duck, isn't it?
Try not to get too bent out of shape you guys, it's just my opinion.
K
Let me know when you want to hold your hands up. I'll be first there.
-
This thread is going to infinity and beyond as buzz light year would say ;D
Just grip it and rip it guys .
-
It's time to close this thread Graeme, but just do after I get the last post in.
-
I won't argue for rear disc brakes or watercooling on a 84 CR500 but an 80's carby on an 80's bike shouldn't have to cause an unfit, slow 56 year old the additional worry of wondering if he will be sent home in disgrace for an eligibility infraction.
But this is a furphy. You won't be sent home for having an illegal carb. One (or more) of four things will happen:
1. You will race in Pre-90;
2. You will be told to fix it for next time;
3. You will race for no points;
4. You will race an nobody will care.
None of these are bad outcomes. But none if this stops it being a post-84 carb that is illegal in a Pre-85 bike.
-
Flatslide... when you accidentally drop the bucket of a 22 tonne excavator on you kids swing set. Been there , done that >:(
-
It's time to close this thread Graeme, but just do after I get the last post in.
You have a thing about appealing to a higher authority..
I have found this thread very helpful
-
Why close it. This clown came on here threatening to smack someone in the mouth. Well I'll accommodate him.
-
One question. Is this the face of VMX we want out there for any new riders, potential riders or sponsorsto see?
-
Why close it. This clown came on here threatening to smack someone in the mouth. Well I'll accommodate him.
WTF TED?.... I didn't read that anywhere.I can picture a hoard of self appointed eligibility scrutineers in spectacles & white coats skulking around the pits taking notes, disqualifying bikes for incorrect carbs, forks, seat covers, nuts, bolts & split spins. Then I can see them skwarking blue murder after being punched in the face that's it's all in the spirit of VMX. Too bad these types seem to have forgotten about actual VMX racing, where someone has to get on a bike & ride it to participate in a VMX race. I get beaten all the time in VMX, but it isn't because the guys in front of me have later model forks, carbs or safety seats, it's because they can ride better than me. Another thread to the detriment of the sport for those who haven't already had enough of the BS.
What a load of crock! No wonder VMX is suffering as a whole.
If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it is a duck, isn't it?
Try not to get too bent out of shape you guys, it's just my opinion.
K
Let me know when you want to hold your hands up. I'll be first there.
Of course you would Ted. Mick DIDN"T threaten anybody. Let alone you. He was obviously speaking about how heated things could get if buttons are pushed the wrong way.
You pedantic types really do bug me. When did you lot become the be all and all of VMX and the rules pertaining to it Ted?Nathan ?
You haven't an inkling of an idea of what was actually available in the way of Carby's before 30/12/1984.
The fact is, any one could of walked into a Honda dealership in late 1984 and purchased a Keihin FS carb. And that, is that. It doesn't matter what bike that carby is in stock for, IT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE CUT OFF DATE FOR PRE85.
And you blokes can't tell me that you aren't running cartridge fork internals or emulators in your bikes forks, Or had the whole shebang of the rear shock modified to modern specs, so don't try to argue that any later model "major components" aren't legal. Secondly, How is a carby a "major component"? Last time I checked, a carby is a consumable item when you're talking about vintage stuff. I have any number of totally flogged carby's in my shed, both Keihin and Mikuni. There's even a late model Dellorto PH38 that is flogged.....There's a couple of clapped out Stromberg and Rochesters as well.
You blokes just refuse to see past the end of your own noses.
I'm with BigK. Stop putting 18y olds on vintage bikes to race old men on old bikes at national events. If the kids were really that good at racing MX, they would be in the US or Europe on a sponsored factory ride with the best of everything at their disposal, instead of thinking they are "AWESOME" because they win a race against old blokes, at least twice, if not 3 times their age. All for a $2 trophy and their name in a book.
-
One question. Is this the face of VMX we want out there for any new riders, potential riders or sponsorsto see?
Some here think it is SS50.....But then, they know better than us mere mortals.
-
I won't argue for rear disc brakes or watercooling on a 84 CR500 but an 80's carby on an 80's bike shouldn't have to cause an unfit, slow 56 year old the additional worry of wondering if he will be sent home in disgrace for an eligibility infraction.
But this is a furphy. You won't be sent home for having an illegal carb. One (or more) of four things will happen:
1. You will race in Pre-90;
2. You will be told to fix it for next time;
3. You will race for no points;
4. You will race an nobody will care.
None of these are bad outcomes. But none if this stops it being a post-84 carb that is illegal in a Pre-85 bike.
I have been witnessing (4.) at various club and interclub meetings. I've not been to a Nationals but from the info JohnnyO provided contentious parts are often time honored.
My argument is that the flat slide carbies should be OK.
Isn't the proper way to test a scrutineer's decision on a contentious part to appeal within half an hour and have a Steward's hearing? If the Steward finds in favour of the rider, all good. If no, a notification of intention to appeal is made and within 21 days a appeal is lodged following which a proper hearing takes place. What is unclear is if the appeal hearing ruling immediately becomes a bulletined or similar legality precedent.
-
Just like your interpretation of the rules Ted, your interpretation of my post is way off, then you get stuck in with the personal attacks toward anyone who has a differing opinion to yourself. Goes to show your gumption or lack thereof. I'd rather race you (not your bike with a kid on it), but if you must have it your way, I'll gladly give you a smack in the mouth, you did after all just ask for it.
By the way, I've never worn huge shoes or a funny hat & I don't have a round red nose but I will if it makes it easier for you to find me.
K
-
As for lodging a protest against a bike before anyone hits the track, well I disagree. No protests should be heard before any actual racing & only then if you're in the top 5 place getters banging bars. Protesting in the pits is utter BS. If you have that little confidence in your riding ability, perhaps it's time to take up golf.
K
-
At the risk of getting back to the core question. I had an EI flat slide Carby on a cr kitted Honda mt250 in ( I think) about 1981. It certainly was no later than 1982. On a dirt track it fairly flew!
When were they available?
-
At the risk of getting back to the core question. I had an EI flat slide Carby on a cr kitted Honda mt250 in ( I think) about 1981. It certainly was no later than 1982. On a dirt track it fairly flew!
When were they available?
I had an EI Blue Magnum on a YZ400 in 79 when they first came out..
-
You pedantic types really do bug me. When did you lot become the be all and all of VMX and the rules pertaining to it Ted? Nathan?
You haven't an inkling of an idea of what was actually available in the way of Carby's before 30/12/1984.
The fact is, any one could of walked into a Honda dealership in late 1984 and purchased a Keihin FS carb. And that, is that. It doesn't matter what bike that carby is in stock for, IT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE CUT OFF DATE FOR PRE85.
And you blokes can't tell me that you aren't running cartridge fork internals or emulators in your bikes forks, Or had the whole shebang of the rear shock modified to modern specs, so don't try to argue that any later model "major components" aren't legal. Secondly, How is a carby a "major component"? Last time I checked, a carby is a consumable item when you're talking about vintage stuff. I have any number of totally flogged carby's in my shed, both Keihin and Mikuni. There's even a late model Dellorto PH38 that is flogged.....There's a couple of clapped out Stromberg and Rochesters as well.
You blokes just refuse to see past the end of your own noses.
I'm with BigK. Stop putting 18y olds on vintage bikes to race old men on old bikes at national events. If the kids were really that good at racing MX, they would be in the US or Europe on a sponsored factory ride with the best of everything at their disposal, instead of thinking they are "AWESOME" because they win a race against old blokes, at least twice, if not 3 times their age. All for a $2 trophy and their name in a book.
The rules are clear. PERIOD components. Year models, not dates of manufacture.
This is not news. This is entirely how the rules have been written, interpreted and understood since the start of the sport.
And suddenly Ted and I are the jerks for not saying "yeah, sure, use whatever parts you want, year models don't matter in a sport defined by year models"?!
Unlike the SexMax, I'm not the heretic here - I'm defending the status quo, because (in this case) the status quo makes sense, is accepted and works.
If you really believe that 1985 model PJ carbs should be legal for Pre-85, then it's up to you to put in a submission to MA for them to be accepted. No amount of forum stroppiness or personal digs will change the fact that a PJ is currently not legal for Pre-85.
-
Why close it. This clown came on here threatening to smack someone in the mouth. Well I'll accommodate him.
WTF TED?.... I didn't read that anywhere.I can picture a hoard of self appointed eligibility scrutineers in spectacles & white coats skulking around the pits taking notes, disqualifying bikes for incorrect carbs, forks, seat covers, nuts, bolts & split spins. Then I can see them skwarking blue murder after being punched in the face that's it's all in the spirit of VMX. Too bad these types seem to have forgotten about actual VMX racing, where someone has to get on a bike & ride it to participate in a VMX race. I get beaten all the time in VMX, but it isn't because the guys in front of me have later model forks, carbs or safety seats, it's because they can ride better than me. Another thread to the detriment of the sport for those who haven't already had enough of the BS.
What a load of crock! No wonder VMX is suffering as a whole.
If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it is a duck, isn't it?
Try not to get too bent out of shape you guys, it's just my opinion.
K
Let me know when you want to hold your hands up. I'll be first there.
Of course you would Ted. Mick DIDN"T threaten anybody. Let alone you. He was obviously speaking about how heated things could get if buttons are pushed the wrong way.
You pedantic types really do bug me. When did you lot become the be all and all of VMX and the rules pertaining to it Ted?Nathan ?
You haven't an inkling of an idea of what was actually available in the way of Carby's before 30/12/1984.
The fact is, any one could of walked into a Honda dealership in late 1984 and purchased a Keihin FS carb. And that, is that. It doesn't matter what bike that carby is in stock for, IT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE CUT OFF DATE FOR PRE85.
And you blokes can't tell me that you aren't running cartridge fork internals or emulators in your bikes forks, Or had the whole shebang of the rear shock modified to modern specs, so don't try to argue that any later model "major components" aren't legal. Secondly, How is a carby a "major component"? Last time I checked, a carby is a consumable item when you're talking about vintage stuff. I have any number of totally flogged carby's in my shed, both Keihin and Mikuni. There's even a late model Dellorto PH38 that is flogged.....There's a couple of clapped out Stromberg and Rochesters as well.
You blokes just refuse to see past the end of your own noses.
I'm with BigK. Stop putting 18y olds on vintage bikes to race old men on old bikes at national events. If the kids were really that good at racing MX, they would be in the US or Europe on a sponsored factory ride with the best of everything at their disposal, instead of thinking they are "AWESOME" because they win a race against old blokes, at least twice, if not 3 times their age. All for a $2 trophy and their name in a book.
Bit rough re the quote about putting young blokes on old bikes
Aren't young blokes welcome ?
Further to that you have a guy giving young blokes a chance that they probably wouldn't have at his own expense and you bag him?
F$&k me that seems a bit harsh
-
And we wonder why people are saying F#@& VMX
-
You pedantic types really do bug me. When did you lot become the be all and all of VMX and the rules pertaining to it Ted? Nathan?
You haven't an inkling of an idea of what was actually available in the way of Carby's before 30/12/1984.
The fact is, any one could of walked into a Honda dealership in late 1984 and purchased a Keihin FS carb. And that, is that. It doesn't matter what bike that carby is in stock for, IT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE CUT OFF DATE FOR PRE85.
And you blokes can't tell me that you aren't running cartridge fork internals or emulators in your bikes forks, Or had the whole shebang of the rear shock modified to modern specs, so don't try to argue that any later model "major components" aren't legal. Secondly, How is a carby a "major component"? Last time I checked, a carby is a consumable item when you're talking about vintage stuff. I have any number of totally flogged carby's in my shed, both Keihin and Mikuni. There's even a late model Dellorto PH38 that is flogged.....There's a couple of clapped out Stromberg and Rochesters as well.
You blokes just refuse to see past the end of your own noses.
I'm with BigK. Stop putting 18y olds on vintage bikes to race old men on old bikes at national events. If the kids were really that good at racing MX, they would be in the US or Europe on a sponsored factory ride with the best of everything at their disposal, instead of thinking they are "AWESOME" because they win a race against old blokes, at least twice, if not 3 times their age. All for a $2 trophy and their name in a book.
The rules are clear. PERIOD components. Year models, not dates of manufacture.
This is not news. This is entirely how the rules have been written, interpreted and understood since the start of the sport.
And suddenly Ted and I are the jerks for not saying "yeah, sure, use whatever parts you want, year models don't matter in a sport defined by year models"?!
Unlike the SexMax, I'm not the heretic here - I'm defending the status quo, because (in this case) the status quo makes sense, is accepted and works.
If you really believe that 1985 model PJ carbs should be legal for Pre-85, then it's up to you to put in a submission to MA for them to be accepted. No amount of forum stroppiness or personal digs will change the fact that a PJ is currently not legal for Pre-85.
In other motor sport genres I've seen deep and difficult eligibility questions easily solved by making the in-question component free.
Often the big argument against a new freedom is the cost burden it may place on the rest of the racing fleet. In the case of a carby freedom for pre '85, as opposed say to legalising sequential change gearboxes in a car racing class that has only allowed for H pattern, the cost is almost negligible; no more than a set of new tyres or a pair of fork valves fitted.
This would have to be a possible result of a well prepared submission to MA.
PWK flatslides are a current model carby and now with throttle position switch and a 10 watt pressure pump supplied, solenoid controlled, power jet to help the midrange. A pre 85 submission would reasonably rule those out.
-
Why close it. This clown came on here threatening to smack someone in the mouth. Well I'll accommodate him.
WTF TED?.... I didn't read that anywhere.I can picture a hoard of self appointed eligibility scrutineers in spectacles & white coats skulking around the pits taking notes, disqualifying bikes for incorrect carbs, forks, seat covers, nuts, bolts & split spins. Then I can see them skwarking blue murder after being punched in the face that's it's all in the spirit of VMX. Too bad these types seem to have forgotten about actual VMX racing, where someone has to get on a bike & ride it to participate in a VMX race. I get beaten all the time in VMX, but it isn't because the guys in front of me have later model forks, carbs or safety seats, it's because they can ride better than me. Another thread to the detriment of the sport for those who haven't already had enough of the BS.
What a load of crock! No wonder VMX is suffering as a whole.
If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it is a duck, isn't it?
Try not to get too bent out of shape you guys, it's just my opinion.
K
Let me know when you want to hold your hands up. I'll be first there.
Of course you would Ted. Mick DIDN"T threaten anybody. Let alone you. He was obviously speaking about how heated things could get if buttons are pushed the wrong way.
You pedantic types really do bug me. When did you lot become the be all and all of VMX and the rules pertaining to it Ted?Nathan ?
You haven't an inkling of an idea of what was actually available in the way of Carby's before 30/12/1984.
The fact is, any one could of walked into a Honda dealership in late 1984 and purchased a Keihin FS carb. And that, is that. It doesn't matter what bike that carby is in stock for, IT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE CUT OFF DATE FOR PRE85.
And you blokes can't tell me that you aren't running cartridge fork internals or emulators in your bikes forks, Or had the whole shebang of the rear shock modified to modern specs, so don't try to argue that any later model "major components" aren't legal. Secondly, How is a carby a "major component"? Last time I checked, a carby is a consumable item when you're talking about vintage stuff. I have any number of totally flogged carby's in my shed, both Keihin and Mikuni. There's even a late model Dellorto PH38 that is flogged.....There's a couple of clapped out Stromberg and Rochesters as well.
You blokes just refuse to see past the end of your own noses.
I'm with BigK. Stop putting 18y olds on vintage bikes to race old men on old bikes at national events. If the kids were really that good at racing MX, they would be in the US or Europe on a sponsored factory ride with the best of everything at their disposal, instead of thinking they are "AWESOME" because they win a race against old blokes, at least twice, if not 3 times their age. All for a $2 trophy and their name in a book.
Bit rough re the quote about putting young blokes on old bikes
Aren't young blokes welcome ?
Further to that you have a guy giving young blokes a chance that they probably wouldn't have at his own expense and you bag him?
F$&k me that seems a bit harsh
How old are you champ?
-
Why close it. This clown came on here threatening to smack someone in the mouth. Well I'll accommodate him.
WTF TED?.... I didn't read that anywhere.I can picture a hoard of self appointed eligibility scrutineers in spectacles & white coats skulking around the pits taking notes, disqualifying bikes for incorrect carbs, forks, seat covers, nuts, bolts & split spins. Then I can see them skwarking blue murder after being punched in the face that's it's all in the spirit of VMX. Too bad these types seem to have forgotten about actual VMX racing, where someone has to get on a bike & ride it to participate in a VMX race. I get beaten all the time in VMX, but it isn't because the guys in front of me have later model forks, carbs or safety seats, it's because they can ride better than me. Another thread to the detriment of the sport for those who haven't already had enough of the BS.
What a load of crock! No wonder VMX is suffering as a whole.
If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it is a duck, isn't it?
Try not to get too bent out of shape you guys, it's just my opinion.
K
Let me know when you want to hold your hands up. I'll be first there.
Of course you would Ted. Mick DIDN"T threaten anybody. Let alone you. He was obviously speaking about how heated things could get if buttons are pushed the wrong way.
You pedantic types really do bug me. When did you lot become the be all and all of VMX and the rules pertaining to it Ted?Nathan ?
You haven't an inkling of an idea of what was actually available in the way of Carby's before 30/12/1984.
The fact is, any one could of walked into a Honda dealership in late 1984 and purchased a Keihin FS carb. And that, is that. It doesn't matter what bike that carby is in stock for, IT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE CUT OFF DATE FOR PRE85.
And you blokes can't tell me that you aren't running cartridge fork internals or emulators in your bikes forks, Or had the whole shebang of the rear shock modified to modern specs, so don't try to argue that any later model "major components" aren't legal. Secondly, How is a carby a "major component"? Last time I checked, a carby is a consumable item when you're talking about vintage stuff. I have any number of totally flogged carby's in my shed, both Keihin and Mikuni. There's even a late model Dellorto PH38 that is flogged.....There's a couple of clapped out Stromberg and Rochesters as well.
You blokes just refuse to see past the end of your own noses.
I'm with BigK. Stop putting 18y olds on vintage bikes to race old men on old bikes at national events. If the kids were really that good at racing MX, they would be in the US or Europe on a sponsored factory ride with the best of everything at their disposal, instead of thinking they are "AWESOME" because they win a race against old blokes, at least twice, if not 3 times their age. All for a $2 trophy and their name in a book.
Bit rough re the quote about putting young blokes on old bikes
Aren't young blokes welcome ?
Further to that you have a guy giving young blokes a chance that they probably wouldn't have at his own expense and you bag him?
F$&k me that seems a bit harsh
How old are you champ?
38.
My son is 11 and he likes riding his 84 cr better than his 07
Should I tell him not to waste his time and just ride moderns?
Funny thing this forum
-
Thankfully Paul this forum isnt necessarily any representation of any VMX Committee .... it's just hot air and bs 89% of the time.
Quite entertaining though! :o
I also would like this thread to not be closed. I am also learning bits and pieces along the way. :)
-
Thankfully Paul this forum isnt necessarily any representation of any VMX Committee .... it's just hot air and bs 89% of the time.
Quite entertaining though! :o
I also would like this thread to not be closed. I am also learning bits and pieces along the way. :)
For sure Hardo.
100% agree.
-
In other motor sport genres I've seen deep and difficult eligibility questions easily solved by making the in-question component free.
Often the big argument against a new freedom is the cost burden it may place on the rest of the racing fleet. In the case of a carby freedom for pre '85, as opposed say to legalising sequential change gearboxes in a car racing class that has only allowed for H pattern, the cost is almost negligible; no more than a set of new tyres or a pair of fork valves fitted.
This would have to be a possible result of a well prepared submission to MA.
PWK flatslides are a current model carby and now with throttle position switch and a 10 watt pressure pump supplied, solenoid controlled, power jet to help the midrange. A pre 85 submission would reasonably rule those out.
I've seen that too. The problem is that this suggestion undermines the fundamental definition of the class: 1985 model bits in a class that's called "Pre-85".
There is no reasonable cost argument when a new VM is so cheap.
There are multiple versions of PWKs. The original is arguably closer to a PE than the PJ is.
-
38.
My son is 11 and he likes riding his 84 cr better than his 07
Should I tell him not to waste his time and just ride moderns?
Funny thing this forum
I have no problems getting hosed off by youngsters of 38 and 11.
There is a point at which the older riders on older bikes reasonably become aggrieved at being beaten for a championship by a seeded young rider on a bike he doesn't own and couldn't build.
Cheers Marcus
-
I have no problems getting hosed off by youngsters of 38 and 11.
There is a point at which the older riders on older bikes reasonably become aggrieved at being beaten for a championship by a seeded young rider on a bike he doesn't own and couldn't build.
Cheers Marcus
We hear that a lot around here. Figure out where the line in the sand is, write a workable rule, and have it endorsed by the commission, and you could make a whole lot of people very happy.
As a youngster of a mere 39 years, it seems obvious that the real solution is for age racing to include all bike ages to maximise the number of riders who can enjoy racing against their age-peers...
-
1984 works RS 250 what looks to be round slide carburetors, pretty sure the 84 RS 500(underslung tank model) had round slides as well. Good Luck with MA :)
(http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s297/Lozza85_2007/imagephp_zpsde814073.jpg) (http://s155.photobucket.com/user/Lozza85_2007/media/imagephp_zpsde814073.jpg.html)
-
38.
My son is 11 and he likes riding his 84 cr better than his 07
Should I tell him not to waste his time and just ride moderns?
Funny thing this forum
I have no problems getting hosed off by youngsters of 38 and 11.
There is a point at which the older riders on older bikes reasonably become aggrieved at being beaten for a championship by a seeded young rider on a bike he doesn't own and couldn't build.
Cheers Marcus
I think it's great that a junior of 11 years like his 84 CR better than any modern. Maybe he will be a genuine vintage bike lover and not one of the modern riding young guns that get to ride dads old clunker at a national event just to prove he can roost everybody.
I have 2 mates with sons that ride modern MX and are both incredibly talented (fast) riders. When asked by dad if they want to race vintage, the answer is "NO, I'd be embarrassed to go out and beat guys twice my age and I don't think it's right" I have a lot of respect for those 2 young men.
One even said that when he gets old enough to appreciate the bikes, he will ride them then.
-
My only point is I think it is rough to hammer a guy like Ted for giving a young guy a opportunity that he would not normally have.
-
As for lodging a protest against a bike before anyone hits the track, well I disagree. No protests should be heard before any actual racing & only then if you're in the top 5 place getters banging bars. Protesting in the pits is utter BS. If you have that little confidence in your riding ability, perhaps it's time to take up golf.
K
Eligibility Scrutineering is a part of scrutineering and therefore any protests RE Eligibility should be lodged within 30 minutes of the close of scrutineering. It is ridiculous to let someone race their guts out and then exclude them after the last race. Give them the chance to make their bike legal or find one that is. This is not just my opinion. I also asked two level 4 officials at Toowoomba last year and another level four official later on. The facts are if someones bike isn't legal it shouldn't be in the race.
I do think some leeway the first time could be considered at a lower level meeting, but at a Championship NO!!!!!!
Again this is just my opinion from experience and asking the right people.
-
Surely a competitor could lodge a protest over a competitor's machine eligibility at any time during the meeting? Otherwise you could take a legal bike through scrutiny, and then change it...
-
In other motor sport genres I've seen deep and difficult eligibility questions easily solved by making the in-question component free.
Often the big argument against a new freedom is the cost burden it may place on the rest of the racing fleet. In the case of a carby freedom for pre '85, as opposed say to legalising sequential change gearboxes in a car racing class that has only allowed for H pattern, the cost is almost negligible; no more than a set of new tyres or a pair of fork valves fitted.
This would have to be a possible result of a well prepared submission to MA.
PWK flatslides are a current model carby and now with throttle position switch and a 10 watt pressure pump supplied, solenoid controlled, power jet to help the midrange. A pre 85 submission would reasonably rule those out.
[/quote]
You make a good point here and with a good rule change submission it could get up for the 2016 MOMS.
But as the current rules stand
16.15.13.1 Acceptable for the pre 85 class are machines and components built up to and including the 1984 model. The only exception to this rule is where the model remains unaltered after this date.
Note it says machines and components built up to and including the 1984 model
So while the kiehin PJ flat slide may have been available as a spare part it would be for the 1985 model bike, so not legal.
However if kiehin had it available for sale (other than a Honda spare part). Maybe and that is a big maybe it could be considered legal, but that would be up to MA.
Again this is just my opinion.
Also there is nothing (currently) in the rules that say a lot of things currently used are ok. Also no where do the rules define major components or consumable items etc
Also you may ask why do I say in my opinion. Because that is what is it is. Just my opinion. The forum is useful to get opinion but very little said here is binding.
-
Surely a competitor could lodge a protest over a competitor's machine eligibility at any time during the meeting? Otherwise you could take a legal bike through scrutiny, and then change it...
Yes you make a good point and the context of a protest would be that the bike was changed after eligibility scrutineering. So you wouldn't just be protesting eligibility you would be protesting that the bike was changed and made in-eligible.
-
The forum is useful to get opinion but very little said here is binding.
Good point: I'd say "nothing said here is binding".
But that doesn't automatically make it incorrect any more than it automatically makes it correct.
-
As far as I am aware, for National titles, bikes are impounded for 30 min after a race to allow for protests. Maybe for vmx it might just be the first 4 bikes, which makes good sense to me.
-
As far as I am aware, for National titles, bikes are impounded for 30 min after a race to allow for protests. Maybe for vmx it might just be the first 4 bikes, which makes good sense to me.
Yes you are right they are impounded for possible protests. But in my opinion any protest on eligibility would have to be that the machine has been changed from what passed scrutineering. Other possible protests could be engine size or fuel etc. Eligibility Scrutineering is conducted at scrutineering so any protest should be within 30 minutes from the close of scrutineering.
GCR 7.2.1.2.c.ii)
-
The forum is useful to get opinion but very little said here is binding.
Good point: I'd say "nothing said here is binding".
But that doesn't automatically make it incorrect any more than it automatically makes it correct.
Yes exactly. What is said and posted here is just an opinion.
-
The forum is useful to get opinion but very little said here is binding.
Good point: I'd say "nothing said here is binding".
But that doesn't automatically make it incorrect any more than it automatically makes it correct.
Yes exactly. What is said and posted here is just an opinion.
Some of the photos and the magazine article excerpts are also part of the weight evidence for the availability of flat slide Keihins prior to 1985, not just opinion.
-
....
Eligibility Scrutineering is conducted at scrutineering so any protest should be within 30 minutes from the close of scrutineering.
GCR 7.2.1.2.c.ii)
7.2.1.2.c.ii:
7.2.1.2
Any protest must:
a) Be in writing,
b) Be accompanied by the prescribed fee which will be refunded if the protest is upheld, or if not must be remitted to the Relevant Controlling Body,
c) Be made to a Steward of the relevant meeting,
d) Comply with the following time limits:
i) For a protest under sub-Rules a)
and b) of the previous Rule, as
soon as practicable after being
informed of the decision,
ii) For a protest under sub-Rule c) of the previous Rule, no more than 30 minutes after the action or conduct,
iii) For a protest under sub-Rule c) in a Speedway or Supercross meeting, no more than five (5) minutes after the action.
The action or (mis)conduct occurs whenever the ineligible bike is raced. I'd say that you'd have 30 minutes after the end of the last race.
-
Some of the photos and the magazine article excerpts are also part of the weight evidence for the availability of flat slide Keihins prior to 1985, not just opinion.
You don't need to prove that Keihin flat-slides existed as pre-85 parts.
You need to prove that the 1985+ Keihin PJ flatslide existed as a pre-85 part,
OR
You need to prove that the 1985+ Keihin PJ flatslide is an exact replica of one that existed as a pre-85 part.
-
The forum is useful to get opinion but very little said here is binding.
Good point: I'd say "nothing said here is binding".
But that doesn't automatically make it incorrect any more than it automatically makes it correct.
Yes exactly. What is said and posted here is just an opinion.
Some of the photos and the magazine article excerpts are also part of the weight evidence for the availability of flat slide Keihins prior to 1985, not just opinion.
But they mean nothing if they aren't sent to the correct people. Also I think a photo would need something to prove it is legit. Documented proof from a company is proper evidence.
-
For these carbs to be potentionally considerd legal for Pre85 there needs to be evidence that they were available for purchase as an aftermarket accessory sometime in 1984 and not just available as a Honda spare part for a 1985 model bike. Much the same way how you could buy a Mikuni from DG Performance specialites as an aftermarket item and also as a Suzuki spare part from a dealer, although most of the OEM Suzuki Mikunis were different to the universal/aftermarket Mikunis anyway. So can anyone show evidience that you could buy a keihin flatslide as an aftermarket accessory carby anytime before the end of 1984???
-
For these carbs to be potentionally considerd legal for Pre85 there needs to be evidence that they were available for purchase as an aftermarket accessory sometime in 1984 and not just available as a Honda spare part for a 1985 model bike. Much the same way how you could buy a Mikuni from DG Performance specialites as an aftermarket item and also as a Suzuki spare part from a dealer, although most of the OEM Suzuki Mikunis were different to the universal/aftermarket Mikunis anyway. So can anyone show evidience that you could buy a keihin flatslide as an aftermarket accessory carby anytime before the end of 1984???
I agree
-
....
Eligibility Scrutineering is conducted at scrutineering so any protest should be within 30 minutes from the close of scrutineering.
GCR 7.2.1.2.c.ii)
7.2.1.2.c.ii:
7.2.1.2
Any protest must:
a) Be in writing,
b) Be accompanied by the prescribed fee which will be refunded if the protest is upheld, or if not must be remitted to the Relevant Controlling Body,
c) Be made to a Steward of the relevant meeting,
d) Comply with the following time limits:
i) For a protest under sub-Rules a)
and b) of the previous Rule, as
soon as practicable after being
informed of the decision,
ii) For a protest under sub-Rule c) of the previous Rule, no more than 30 minutes after the action or conduct,
iii) For a protest under sub-Rule c) in a Speedway or Supercross meeting, no more than five (5) minutes after the action.
The action or (mis)conduct occurs whenever the ineligible bike is raced. I'd say that you'd have 30 minutes after the end of the last race.
If the bike has passed eligibility scrutineering then it is deemed eligible. The action is eligibility scrutineering so you have thirty minutes after that action stops to protest.
However you could protest if you think you can prove the machine has been changed.
A Steward can also not accept a protest if they think there is no grounds to protest on.
I know you like to be right Nathan but I have asked several level four officials on this subject and I am giving my opinion based on that.
Has anyone (besides me) taken the time to ask MA about the keihin flat slides? Or do we just talk around in circles.
-
Surely a competitor could lodge a protest over a competitor's machine eligibility at any time during the meeting? Otherwise you could take a legal bike through scrutiny, and then change it...
I finished 4th in the pre 75 unlimited at the '92 Daigle nats behind a very well known racer on an LTR Maico who removed his rear travel limiters for each heat. I wanted to lodge a protest but was howled down by everyone, as I was just a ring-in dirt tracker and this wanker was a big name. A punch-up nearly ensued in the pits but I was a little outnumbered. The whole deal left me disillusioned for a long time, just because of a lowlife cheat. Just saying....
-
Has anyone (besides me) taken the time to ask MA about the keihin flat slides? Or do we just talk around in circles.
It seems MA have already given their approval to Keihin flat slide carbies.
Apparently thusly equipped pre 85 bikes have raced at the National level for years.
Perhaps you need to roll out the MA administrative regulations that deal with misconduct by eligibility scrutineers.
-
Surely a competitor could lodge a protest over a competitor's machine eligibility at any time during the meeting? Otherwise you could take a legal bike through scrutiny, and then change it...
I finished 4th in the pre 75 unlimited at the '92 Daigle nats behind a very well known racer on an LTR Maico who removed his rear travel limiters for each heat. I wanted to lodge a protest but was howled down by everyone, as I was just a ring-in dirt tracker and this wanker was a big name. A punch-up nearly ensued in the pits but I was a little outnumbered. The whole deal left me disillusioned for a long time, just because of a lowlife cheat. Just saying....
? Someone commenting here?
-
If the bike has passed eligibility scrutineering then it is deemed eligible. The action is eligibility scrutineering so you have thirty minutes after that action stops to protest.
However you could protest if you think you can prove the machine has been changed.
A Steward can also not accept a protest if they think there is no grounds to protest on.
I know you like to be right Nathan but I have asked several level four officials on this subject and I am giving my opinion based on that.
....
Bit distracted right now, but that seems a bit odd: If riders have the right to protest other bikes, then they must also be given the opportunity to inspect those bikes and be able to lodge a protest in the relevant time frame.
If the bike is raced in an ineligible state, then it shouldn't matter whether it was incorrectly passed for scrutiny or changed later.
And yes, I do like being right. Its way more fun than being wrong. :)
-
It seems MA have already given their approval to Keihin flat slide carbies.
Apparently thusly equipped pre 85 bikes have raced at the National level for years.
An omission or error in the past does not constitute approval.
-
As far as I am aware, for National titles, bikes are impounded for 30 min after a race to allow for protests. Maybe for vmx it might just be the first 4 bikes, which makes good sense to me.
Yes you are right they are impounded for possible protests. But in my opinion any protest on eligibility would have to be that the machine has been changed from what passed scrutineering. Other possible protests could be engine size or fuel etc. Eligibility Scrutineering is conducted at scrutineering so any protest should be within 30 minutes from the close of scrutineering.
GCR 7.2.1.2.c.ii)
In other motorsport the first three in a Championship race would be re-examined for eligibility while in parc ferme.
It should up to the organisers/governing body who stipulate the rules to enforce them on machine legality.
-
As far as I am aware, for National titles, bikes are impounded for 30 min after a race to allow for protests. Maybe for vmx it might just be the first 4 bikes, which makes good sense to me.
Yes you are right they are impounded for possible protests. But in my opinion any protest on eligibility would have to be that the machine has been changed from what passed scrutineering. Other possible protests could be engine size or fuel etc. Eligibility Scrutineering is conducted at scrutineering so any protest should be within 30 minutes from the close of scrutineering.
GCR 7.2.1.2.c.ii)
Following logically from this then, a protest against a Pre85 Keihin flatslide equipped bike that has passed scrutineering is in effect a protest against the official, the scrutineer, for failing to apply an MA eligibility rule, not a protest against a competitor for presenting an illegal machine.
In that case it is hard to see how the rider could be penalised.
-
Surely a competitor could lodge a protest over a competitor's machine eligibility at any time during the meeting? Otherwise you could take a legal bike through scrutiny, and then change it...
I finished 4th in the pre 75 unlimited at the '92 Daigle nats behind a very well known racer on an LTR Maico who removed his rear travel limiters for each heat. I wanted to lodge a protest but was howled down by everyone, as I was just a ring-in dirt tracker and this wanker was a big name. A punch-up nearly ensued in the pits but I was a little outnumbered. The whole deal left me disillusioned for a long time, just because of a lowlife cheat. Just saying....
Never be afraid to stand up for your rights and if need be protest. I wasn't there so don't know all the circumstances, but maybe the biggest mistake you made was letting others know you might protest. Maybe a quite word to a key official so they can check the bike before or after the race.
Again I know circumstance are not always straight forward, but there is a case where a bike was possibly changed after eligibility scrutineering.
-
Has anyone (besides me) taken the time to ask MA about the keihin flat slides? Or do we just talk around in circles.
It seems MA have already given their approval to Keihin flat slide carbies.
Apparently thusly equipped pre 85 bikes have raced at the National level for years.
Perhaps you need to roll out the MA administrative regulations that deal with misconduct by eligibility scrutineers.
I have said it once and I will say it again. Don't take what MAY have happened at previous Championships as acceptance that it COULD happen again. For a start you would need to prove it did happen.
Again this is just my opinion.
-
As far as I am aware, for National titles, bikes are impounded for 30 min after a race to allow for protests. Maybe for vmx it might just be the first 4 bikes, which makes good sense to me.
Yes you are right they are impounded for possible protests. But in my opinion any protest on eligibility would have to be that the machine has been changed from what passed scrutineering. Other possible protests could be engine size or fuel etc. Eligibility Scrutineering is conducted at scrutineering so any protest should be within 30 minutes from the close of scrutineering.
GCR 7.2.1.2.c.ii)
Following logically from this then, a protest against a Pre85 Keihin flatslide equipped bike that has passed scrutineering is in effect a protest against the official, the scrutineer, for failing to apply an MA eligibility rule, not a protest against a competitor for presenting an illegal machine.
In that case it is hard to see how the rider could be penalised.
Yes that is a good point and is a reason why the bike shouldn't be let through in the first place.
-
If the bike has passed eligibility scrutineering then it is deemed eligible. The action is eligibility scrutineering so you have thirty minutes after that action stops to protest.
However you could protest if you think you can prove the machine has been changed.
A Steward can also not accept a protest if they think there is no grounds to protest on.
I know you like to be right Nathan but I have asked several level four officials on this subject and I am giving my opinion based on that.
....
Bit distracted right now, but that seems a bit odd: If riders have the right to protest other bikes, then they must also be given the opportunity to inspect those bikes and be able to lodge a protest in the relevant time frame. So you think you have to right to walk around the pits and check other peoples bikes out. Good luck with that (Ted don't hit him)
If the bike is raced in an ineligible state, then it shouldn't matter whether it was incorrectly passed for scrutiny or changed later. If a bike has passed eligibility scrutineering then it is eligible. So you should protest the E Scrutineer
And yes, I do like being right. Its way more fun than being wrong. :)
I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken
-
Question or protest a bike at any time, just because its been through the line up doesnt means its got a cloak of protection over it...
the line up is the first pass, and is normally a place to pick the obvious anomaly or class entry issues , but it can be questioned at any time on the line, in the pits, on the finish line, our in a formal protest with Fee for a determination.
If your cheating its a matter of when and hopefully it will get picked up before the places are made offical.
-
So you think you have to right to walk around the pits and check other peoples bikes out.
That was pretty much my point:
If you have to 'catch' the bikes while they're being scrutineered or immediately afterward, then it basically makes it impossible for a competitor to lodge a protest on eligibility.
Seems like a flawed system to me.
Illegal bike is illegal all meeting - as Freaky says, being scrutineered doesn't automatically make it invincible...
-
Following logically from this then, a protest against a Pre85 Keihin flatslide equipped bike that has passed scrutineering is in effect a protest against the official, the scrutineer, for failing to apply an MA eligibility rule, not a protest against a competitor for presenting an illegal machine.
Well put - I wanted to say this but couldn't work out how to word it.
I'm inclined to go with Freaky's take on it, largely because it is both fair and workable.
-
Hmmm, perhaps I'm a tad naïve on this point then. Are there really blatant cheats out there? My arguments are based on common sense applications with some components & in no way do I endorse any form of actual cheating. In all my years of VMX I've not come across a blatant cheat. I've never been to national meeting though as I simply refuse to de-engineer my 1977 Husky backwards from how it was sold in 1977 to comply with the suspension limits.
Hell, I used to be shit at motocross until I discovered I could buy trophies!
K
-
There's a few recorded cases of blatant cheating, a few stories like Yamaico's, and a lot of 'grey area' ones where the rider may have genuinely not known that their bike didn't meet the rules (or may have been playing dumb), and even more where the difference was trivial so that everyone ignored it.
I share your concern about the non-riding boffins in white coats and spectacles picking on irrelevant "problems" - nobody wants that.
But the line has to be drawn somewhere.
-
geezas,13 pages to draw a line in the sand/rocks/mud whatever,fugging awesome ::) :P
ps i wont get invited to KTM afterparty drinki poos no time soon either :(
-
Your post makes it 14 pages Mick. This is the problem, John Orchard asked a simple question which should have a simple answer, yet 14 pages of discussion shows different.
K
-
16.15.13.1 Acceptable for the pre 85 class are machines and components built up to and including the 1984 model. The only exception to this rule is where the model remains unaltered after this date.
Note it says machines and components built up to and including the 1984 model
So while the kiehin PJ flat slide may have been available as a spare part it would be for the 1985 model bike, so not legal.
However if kiehin had it available for sale (other than a Honda spare part). Maybe and that is a big maybe it could be considered legal, but that would be up to MA.
Fair enough Kevin. You (by stating the rule book) have outlined quiet clearly that a component produced in 1984 BUT is manufactured for a 1985 MODEL bike is ineligible.
Looks like any rear shock, fork internals, pro taper bars, unbreakable levers etc, all of which are OBVIOUSLY manufactured AFTER 30/12/1984, can be deemed as ineligible as well then.....
Question is, how far do we want to take the eligibility rulings?
-
No one has posted this line out of the rules yet. It overrides 16.15.13.1 .
16.15.13.2
Carburettors; period flat slide carburettors and any round slide carburettor may be used.
My interetation would be if you could get a Carb from anysource in 1984, even as a spare part it is a period carb. It doesn't have to be from a bike sold as an 84 model.
-
16.15.13.1 Acceptable for the pre 85 class are machines and components built up to and including the 1984 model. The only exception to this rule is where the model remains unaltered after this date.
Note it says machines and components built up to and including the 1984 model
So while the kiehin PJ flat slide may have been available as a spare part it would be for the 1985 model bike, so not legal.
The key of the argument I made is that the readily available flat slide Keihins are the same model carb as the RC500 carby; in effect a works part. The rules, and precedent, allow the use of works parts, indeed complete bikes.
The fact that the '85 model CR250 carbies were readily available in 1984 as a spare part provides more evidence of their use and availability in the era.
MA may be well aware of this.;)
Keihin flat slide carbs have been used at National meetings without fuss on Pre85 bikes for many years.
-
16.15.13.1 Acceptable for the pre 85 class are machines and components built up to and including the 1984 model. The only exception to this rule is where the model remains unaltered after this date.
Note it says machines and components built up to and including the 1984 model
So while the kiehin PJ flat slide may have been available as a spare part it would be for the 1985 model bike, so not legal.
The key of the argument I made is that the readily available flat slide Keihins are the same model carb as the RC500 carby; in effect a works part. The rules, and precedent, allow the use of works parts, indeed complete bikes.
The fact that the '85 model CR250 carbies were readily available in 1984 as a spare part provides more evidence of their use and availability in the era.
MA may be well aware of this.;)
Keihin flat slide carbs have been used at National meetings without fuss on Pre85 bikes for many years.
i'd agree.
All the against are quoting rule 16.15.13.1 which in the case of a Carb doesn't apply as there is rule 16.15.13.2 which covers Carbs.
-
Question or protest a bike at any time, just because its been through the line up doesnt means its got a cloak of protection over it...
the line up is the first pass, and is normally a place to pick the obvious anomaly or class entry issues , but it can be questioned at any time on the line, in the pits, on the finish line, our in a formal protest with Fee for a determination.
If your cheating its a matter of when and hopefully it will get picked up before the places are made offical.
Freaky I do not agree with you and myself and three other level four officials have the same opinion.
If a rider has presented his bike in good faith and it passes Eligibility Scrutineering he or she should have a reasonable expectation, that if he or she doesn't change the bike it shouldn't be protested for eligibility. However everyone is human (including MA Officials) so if a rider thinks an official has made the wrong decision, a rider or entrant has got the right to protest the decision of the official. However there is time limits for protests, but a Steward could wave that time limit in exceptional circumstances.
Momus No one has established that the keihin PJ (production model) was available in 1984 (even as a spare part).
Sleepy 16.15.13.2 Carburettors; period flat slide carburettors and any round slide carburettor may be used.
The period for Pre 85 is (Pre 85) so we are back to 16.15.13.1.
The real problem is that riders have been stretching the rules for a long time now. There are even things on my own bike that if the rules were enforced as written may not conform. The rules need some leeway written in, but that can't happen straight away.
John Orchard asked a question and I think it has been answered.
-
I agree there is a need for rules, but sensible rules, not draconian. Maybe the current rules are fine (if a bit tight), but how does any commissioner, scrutineer, official or anyone deal with the multitude of differing opinions as shown just here, especially from those who want to talk just to show how "knowledgeable" they are?
It's amateur VMX. It's supposed to be fun. Any rule changes or clarification should be in the interest of making compliance simpler & easier, not the opposite as a noisy few on here promote. More rules or tougher rules will not help, on the contrary, it will be the end of VMX as we know it. If the pundits want to make it their own boys club, then keep on with it, you'll probably get there in the end. Condemn blatant cheating, but embrace common sense.
K
-
Looks like any rear shock, fork internals, pro taper bars, unbreakable levers etc, all of which are OBVIOUSLY manufactured AFTER 30/12/1984, can be deemed as ineligible as well then.....
Question is, how far do we want to take the eligibility rulings?
You gotta remember, that VMX is generally about 'recreating the period' or what ever you want to call it, there are some things that are allowed that were not available back then and somethings that were available that are not allowed now. Its just the way it is as it is impossible to recreate everything exactly how it was.
2 examples of things that are of the correct period that are not allowed are aftermarket watercooled heads in pre78/evo and original travel on certain bikes eg 77 Husky as mentioned above. They are 2 things that although 'period correct', are not allowed in todays racing.
Some things that are allowed today that were not available back then are for example wide pegs, fancy high tech shocks and cartridge emulators in forks among others.
You need to look at parts in 3 categories
1 - OEM parts
2 - aftermarket parts/accessories (usually performance enhancing major components)
3 - consumables (can be OEM or aftermarket)
The Keihin flat slide fits into category 1 (OEM parts) and is a major component from a 1985 model. There has to be a line in the sand and if you were to allow this carby or any other major component from a 1985 model bike you would have to allow every single 1985 model bike into pre 85. Its never going to happen. The rule is there to stop OEM major components being used from 1985 models.
Category 2 (aftermarket parts) any can be used if it can be proved that they were available up to the cut off. In this case 31/12/84. The reason being is that they are not major OEM components from/for a 1985 model bike.
Category 3 (consumables) are like others have said 'free' so you can use what you want. You could even use OEM Honda grips or a clutch cable intended for a 1985 model. Now some may say why are those allowed if they are for a 85 bike but not the carby or forks etc. Well the grips, cables, bars etc fall into 'consumables' so can come from anywhere.
To simplify it even more....
for pre 85 you can use
1- Any 1984 model or older bike/part of bike.
2 - Any after market part that is not already considered a consumable and automatically allowed, if there's proof it was available for purchase up to 31/12/84 (for the Kehine flat slide to be considered legal for pre 85 it would need to fit this requirement as it currently does not meet point 1. above)
3 - Any part from any period/bike that is considered a consumable, although its my personal option that you should try and keep your bike looking correct period where possible so this is where i have a disliking to fat bars but if people want to use them that's their choice.
So really the whole 31/12/84 cut off only relates to aftermarket parts that are not considered consumables.
It's all really simple when you break it down like that.
This is how i understand it, its really easy to follow i think.
Another point, scruitineers are not perfect and can not be expected to know every single little allowable/non allowable thing on a bike/in a class. Sometimes they may make a mistake or oversee something and this is how something may have slipped through in the past when it probably should not have.
-
give me a std Vm and modern sockers in my age group and Im happy as a pig in shit, proved it plenty of times get the damn thing handleing it beats check book raceing (hot donk) everytime.
There is plenty of crap done inside that we cant see and its ok under the stock appearing rule.
hmm Ive got a Tm and look in the sudco book I can buy a after market TM power jet kit for more mid range oh ow what have i done :-X
-
I agree there is a need for rules, but sensible rules, not draconian. Maybe the current rules are fine (if a bit tight), but how does any commissioner, scrutineer, official or anyone deal with the multitude of differing opinions as shown just here, especially from those who want to talk just to show how "knowledgeable" they are?
It's amateur VMX. It's supposed to be fun. Any rule changes or clarification should be in the interest of making compliance simpler & easier, not the opposite as a noisy few on here promote. More rules or tougher rules will not help, on the contrary, it will be the end of VMX as we know it. If the pundits want to make it their own boys club, then keep on with it, you'll probably get there in the end. Condemn blatant cheating, but embrace common sense.
K
You summed up exactly what I am trying to put across Mick.
Sure, If someone is attempting to blatantly fit a PWK carb, that would be un kosher IMHO. However, A PJ flatslide is basically no different to any other flatslide of the era, other than a Lectron which was light years better. The gurus have said the PJ is a crap carby.... so why the fuss?
The PJ Kiehin WAS available prior to the cut of date for pre 85 so I would strenuously submit that if anyone was to protest against it.
As for "fat bars", they are a performance advantage because they are proven to reduce vibration, hence less fatigue on the rider. Ban them.
Same for unbreakable levers. They weren't available in the era and are a performance advantage IMO. If you drop the bike, they don't bend or break, unlike the levers of the day. Ban them too.
Personally, I don't give two tosses of a flying fluck what gets run on a bike, BUT, if someone were to lodge a protest on a pre85 bike of mine that had a PJ flatslide Kiehin on it, then I would repay the favour by doing the same in return.
Where will it ever end?
-
I agree there is a need for rules, but sensible rules, not draconian. Maybe the current rules are fine (if a bit tight), but how does any commissioner, scrutineer, official or anyone deal with the multitude of differing opinions as shown just here, especially from those who want to talk just to show how "knowledgeable" they are?
It's amateur VMX. It's supposed to be fun. Any rule changes or clarification should be in the interest of making compliance simpler & easier, not the opposite as a noisy few on here promote. More rules or tougher rules will not help, on the contrary, it will be the end of VMX as we know it. If the pundits want to make it their own boys club, then keep on with it, you'll probably get there in the end. Condemn blatant cheating, but embrace common sense.
K
You summed up exactly what I am trying to put across Mick.
Sure, If someone is attempting to blatantly fit a PWK carb, that would be un kosher IMHO. However, A PJ flatslide is basically no different to any other flatslide of the era, other than a Lectron which was light years better. The gurus have said the PJ is a crap carby.... so why the fuss?
The PJ Kiehin WAS available prior to the cut of date for pre 85 so I would strenuously submit that if anyone was to protest against it.
As for "fat bars", they are a performance advantage because they are proven to reduce vibration, hence less fatigue on the rider. Ban them.
Same for unbreakable levers. They weren't available in the era and are a performance advantage IMO. If you drop the bike, they don't bend or break, unlike the levers of the day. Ban them too.
Personally, I don't give two tosses of a flying fluck what gets run on a bike, BUT, if someone were to lodge a protest on a pre85 bike of mine that had a PJ flatslide Kiehin on it, then I would repay the favour by doing the same in return.
Where will it ever end?
here here, so then, we will be able to make a pre85 frame that's identical but made in 2015 ??? identical components would count as flow on right?
-
An identical frame does not have a technological or performance improvement, and is legal.
If anyone can prove that the PJ was available as a 1984 model part, then it is legal, simple as that. Until then, it is not legal.
Personally, I hate fatbars on VMX bikes. They ARE a performance improvement, and are visually incompatible. Like unbreakable levers, they have never been outlawed because they are considered a consumable part, and because it is difficult to write an enforceable rule to prohibit them.
-
Here's a thought, has anyone considered the rules are written a bit "grey" deliberately to actually allow a bit of sway?
As for a new frame, although identical being legal, there is one of the paradoxes.
K
-
Here's a thought, has anyone considered the rules are written a bit "grey" deliberately to actually allow a bit of sway?
As for a new frame, although identical being legal, there is one of the paradoxes.
K
Yes. This is a noble goal, but doomed to failure because it just creates uncertainty.
People want to be able to build their bikes to be as fast and as legal as possible. Nobody wants the stress of not knowing if they'll be protested, but nor do they want to give away a possible performance opportunity.
When the rules are grey, it leaves too much up to the Scrutineer on the day: is your bike that's sailed though a dozen Nationals going to be sent home this time because the chief Scrutineer has a bee in his bonnet over a particular rule? Are you going to line up against an illegal bike because the chief Scrutineer is a mate of his? Are you going to race all weekend and then be excluded on protest because the Scrutineer was lenient to get you out there racing?
Grey rules create stress, and a negative for any sport.
Have a look at this forum: 99.859% of the agro is about the rules.
When the rules are clear and easily understood, then competitors can roll up to scrutiny with confidence. Clear rules also take a lot of pressure off scrutineers, stewards and even this forum.
-
Hi,
"Grey rules create stress, and a negative for any sport.
Have a look at this forum: 99.859% of the agro is about the rules".
"When the rules are clear and easily understood, then competitors can roll up to scrutiny with confidence. Clear rules also take a lot of pressure off scrutineers, stewards and even this forum".
what he said
cheers
-
Touche' Nathan.
-
agreed ;)
-
It's not really practical or realistic to operate with an "us-vs-them" attitude to the rule book. The rules are designed by the members for the members. If you think a rule is poorly worded or incorrectly written, whack in a submission to clarify it, or improve it. After the commission has reviewed it, the mod will appear in 18 months time in the GCRs, MoMS or whatever it's called by then.
Also, the logbook situation that historic roadracing has adopted, while flawed, seems by and large to work ok, but would be impractical to implement in vmx (let alone the scores of pages of whinging it would generate on here !) It's not the job of a scrutineer to validate what is or isn't period-correct on race day. I believe in vmx, as in historic roadracing, the eligibility for a submitted bike should be determined by others racing in that class. That would soon weed out any dodgy bikes attempting to sneak through later-model components for an advantage, and would quickly result in a level playing field : being judged by your peers, in fact.
-
What's the MA process for being "judged by your peers"?
Again, it's a good idea on paper but just leads to uncertainty and stress. How do you know that you won't get pinged because you beat the local hero in the first race?
Or if you are beaten by a rider on a clearly illegal bike, but you are outvoted because he's mates with half the riders in the class?
I get the idea, but to make it function fairly would take a ton of work - basically you'd have to get ALL of the other class competitors to agree that they were happy to race against someone with an illegal bike.
The realistic solution is clear, easy to understand rules.
-
you'd have to get ALL of the other class competitors to agree that they were happy to race against someone with an illegal bike.
The aim is to get all the other class competitors to agree they're NOT happy to race against an illegal bike.
-
Rules without grey areas:
Component legality without disagreement:
(http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah84/msfracingcomponentsmus/quest_for_the_holy_grail_zps80d023e7.jpg)
-
An identical frame does not have a technological or performance improvement, and is legal.
If anyone can prove that the PJ was available as a 1984 model part, then it is legal, simple as that. Until then, it is not legal.
Personally, I hate fatbars on VMX bikes. They ARE a performance improvement, and are visually incompatible. Like unbreakable levers, they have never been outlawed because they are considered a consumable part, and because it is difficult to write an enforceable rule to prohibit them.
Nathan Were is this imaginary rule that talks about consumable parts. It doesn't exist, not in the MOMS or anywhere else in writing. Also unlike the Historic Road Racing there is no provision for replacement or replica parts.
What we do have in CMX/DT is a lot of unwritten rules that appear to have become accepted.
We also have a lot of things that have been ignored or let go, so the biggest problem is going to be changing things without alienating too many bike owners.
Also as I have already said I think John Orchard has got his answer. The carby is not legal.
-
you'd have to get ALL of the other class competitors to agree that they were happy to race against someone with an illegal bike.
The aim is to get all the other class competitors to agree they're NOT happy to race against an illegal bike.
WOW That's not going to happen and I doubt an MA Official would let it occur. The Officials are the ones who have the duty of care to the licence holders.
-
You're absolutely correct, Kevin: the "major components" rule has been gone for several years now.
But we all have to pretend it still exists, because without it, nobody has a legal bike...
-
WOW That's not going to happen and I doubt an MA Official would let it occur. The Officials are the ones who have the duty of care to the licence holders.
What ? What MA official would prevent a method of machine eligibility being introduced, as a duty of care?
-
Rules without grey areas:
Component legality without disagreement:
(http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah84/msfracingcomponentsmus/quest_for_the_holy_grail_zps80d023e7.jpg)
Of course. But we've got far too many grey areas now and some of them are huge.
The casual, friendly attitude of VMX has stopped the vague rules being a problem - but the disputes, uncertainty and anxiety over those rules has undermined the the casual nature of this sport.
As this thread has shown, everyone is happy that their interpretation is correct until someone disagrees with it - then we all entrench our positions.
Worse, is that most of the rule tweaking in the last few years has extended the areas of grey, giving the Eligibility Scrutineer more and more discretion, and the punters less and less certainty.
-
15 pages, 220 replies, the humble mixer must feel homoured.
I reckon a skilled scribe like Firko could write the whole history of vintage MX in less words.
-
Sorry folks, 223 and counting. Of course the challenge for Firko is he wouldn't have the luxury of endless repetition or no one would read it.
-
Why are you so keen for people to not discuss their sport, Col?
-
No objection Nathan, just a bemused observation.
-
No objection Nathan, just a bemused observation.
And not adding any value to the conversation at all except to undermine those people discussing it. Sounds like a familiar approach to me.
-
Come in spinner, or should I say Simmo. And sorry if you are feelling undermined by a "bemused observation"
-
It's not really practical or realistic to operate with an "us-vs-them" attitude to the rule book. The rules are designed by the members for the members. If you think a rule is poorly worded or incorrectly written, whack in a submission to clarify it, or improve it. After the commission has reviewed it, the mod will appear in 18 months time in the GCRs, MoMS or whatever it's called by then.
Also, the logbook situation that historic roadracing has adopted, while flawed, seems by and large to work ok, but would be impractical to implement in vmx (let alone the scores of pages of whinging it would generate on here !) It's not the job of a scrutineer to validate what is or isn't period-correct on race day. I believe in vmx, as in historic roadracing, the eligibility for a submitted bike should be determined by others racing in that class. That would soon weed out any dodgy bikes attempting to sneak through later-model components for an advantage, and would quickly result in a level playing field : being judged by your peers, in fact.
GD66, by the sound of it you were involved with preparing a successful submission on a rules question to MA. What was it and what process did you use?
Cheers
-
VINTAGE GRIPES
I was at the Vintage Road Racing championships at Phillip Island in February and it was very well supported. I also went to the Bendigo MX tiles with Gary Hodge. I don't know the figures but the number of riders at the meeting seemed to be at least equal to the Phillip Island meeting.
What I am saying is the huge number of riders at Bendigo were surely a representative cross section of the people most interested in that phase of the sport. On the Saturday night delegates from each state sat around a table and argued their points until they came up with a set of rules compatible with the majority.
These rules were then sent to the ACCA for ratification which I, in my innocence, presumed would only be a formality. But I was wrong. Those rules, which dirt bike riders assembled, have been played around with.
It's time there was a re-think somewhere. Any Vintage racing is just for fun, or it's supposed to be. It's an opportunity to bring out the old monster that's no longer competitive, with riders who are past the stage of believing it doesn't hurt when you fall off.
I hope that this vigorous branch of the sport is not ruined by rules that are not in the majority's interest.
Phil Young
Richmond NSW
You put a strong case Phil. Let's just hope someone at MA is listening. There is the hint of a new wind blowing which, if it builds in strength, could see the different segments of the sport controlled by those closely associated with it, with less input from those without a clue ( MA ) All it takes is for the various sub-committees to shoulder the responsibility. We live in hope.
Geoff Eldridge
Editor ADB
Comments from two very knowledgable dirt bike guys in September 1992.
Twenty three years later and absolutely nothing has changed.
-
Also as I have already said I think John Orchard has got his answer. The carby is not legal.
And just how is it that you think PJ Kiehin FS carbs are not legal Kevin? Are you ignoring all the facts that the carby was indeed available prior to 30/12/1984?
Wether it was available as a spare part for a 1985 model bike or not is a moot point. It was available for the public to purchase prior to the cut off date for pre85. It's not like anybody is trying to introduce the entire 1985 model bike, or even any major component of said bike. It's a carburetor. A consumable item in any bodies language. And it has been proven here that the PJ flatslide was on the RC500 in 1984. Get your facts straight mate.
-
So am I allowed to use my Chad Reed bend bars on my 79 A5?
Chad wasn't alive in 79 ...... :o ::)
-
Also as I have already said I think John Orchard has got his answer. The carby is not legal.
And just how is it that you think PJ Kiehin FS carbs are not legal Kevin? Are you ignoring all the facts that the carby was indeed available prior to 30/12/1984?
Wether it was available as a spare part for a 1985 model bike or not is a moot point. It was available for the public to purchase prior to the cut off date for pre85. It's not like anybody is trying to introduce the entire 1985 model bike, or even any major component of said bike. It's a carburetor. A consumable item in any bodies language. And it has been proven here that the PJ flatslide was on the RC500 in 1984. Get your facts straight mate.
So using that theory it's ok for me to buy an alloy swingarm for a 78 YZ250E and fit it to a 77 YZ250D for the pre 78 class
-
Also as I have already said I think John Orchard has got his answer. The carby is not legal.
And just how is it that you think PJ Kiehin FS carbs are not legal Kevin? Are you ignoring all the facts that the carby was indeed available prior to 30/12/1984?
Wether it was available as a spare part for a 1985 model bike or not is a moot point. It was available for the public to purchase prior to the cut off date for pre85. It's not like anybody is trying to introduce the entire 1985 model bike, or even any major component of said bike. It's a carburetor. A consumable item in any bodies language. And it has been proven here that the PJ flatslide was on the RC500 in 1984. Get your facts straight mate.
No, on all your main points.
1. It has to have existed in 1984 in a form other than as a 1985 model part.
This has not been demonstrated.
2. It has not been proven that the 84 RC500 carby is a production PJ.
It has not been proven that the 84 RC500 is identical to a production PJ.
3. Carbies are not consumables. If they don't suck dirt, they last the life of the bike.
4. The rules specifically mention the need for "period" flatslides.
There are a couple of paths to take if you want to legally run a PJ on a Pre-85 bike, but it will take more than simply making assertions on OzVMX.
-
GD66, by the sound of it you were involved with preparing a successful submission on a rules question to MA. What was it and what process did you use?
You can submit it through your club, through your LCB or direct to MA in Melbourne. There is also a form for it near the front of the MoMS, or you can download it from the website www.ma.org.au >GCRs>Rules>Request a rule change.
I have had several go through in historic roadracing. Although MA butchered the wording, I got one through requiring P4 and later machines to use hydraulic fittings on their oil lines, rather than a twist of wire round a rubber pipe, or a buggered jubilee clip. That was inspired by dragging my bike and sorry arse from Perth to the historic nationals and Phillip Island Classic only to have sidecars drop a lap and a half of oil on the racing line on the Friday morning, so we raced all weekend on cement dust, very disconcerting.
Another one was rejecting the otherwise-compulsory use of the appalling Arial Round number font on historic machines, reasoning that period font was not only clearer to read but more in keeping with period machinery. The scrutineers tried to force all competitors to use Arial Round numbers at a nationals in Queensland a few years back by supplying numbers to all. They ran out after about 12 bikes, and I whacked my submission in after that.
I have one in at the moment, seeking to withdraw the farcical rule that says roadrace sidecar passengers are not required to wear gloves. A little hard to enforce the rule about permitting only closed footwear in the pits, when passengers are whizzing round at over 200 km/h with bare hands, let alone what happens when they unload. The shabby excuses I have been given to keep the rule in are woeful.
It is not without some experience that these alterations have been successful, I have been going to bike meetings since 1962, been an official since 1968, and am level 3 clerk and steward for roadracing, level 2 clerk and steward for mx, and a venue inspector, as well as doing commentary since 1970, plus 26 years racing as well. Not that any of that is required to make a rule submission. But they are OUR rules, so WE have to tidy them up if required. Not just sit back and say MA are fcuked.
Get stuck in, mate ! ;)
-
Come in spinner, or should I say Simmo. And sorry if you are feelling undermined by a "bemused observation"
Undermined?? How could I be feeling (or is that feelling?) undermined?? You are mistaking me for someone else as I've not said anything nor had any involvement with this conversation prior to that post?
-
Thanks for that GD66 (and for other PM'd info I received).
I am gathering information.
There is a dog half asleep here too ??? given the plenty of times flat slide fitted CR500's have run at national level.
Cheers
-
So am I allowed to use my Chad Reed bend bars on my 79 A5?
Chad wasn't alive in 79 ...... :o ::)
Only if you've got a '77 model with Windham RM bend Pro Tapers
-
Thanks for that GD66 (and for other PM'd info I received).
I am gathering information.
There is a dog half asleep here too ??? given the plenty of times flat slide fitted CR500's have run at national level.
Cheers
Don't hold any faith in what has run at previous Nats as being gospel or setting a precedent. Especially after hearing a certain eligibility scrutineer telling a contestant " I'll let you ride it but if anybody protests I will disqualify you "
The only information you need to gather is either a dated sales receipt or a dated picture.
-
....
There is a dog half asleep here too ??? given the plenty of times flat slide fitted CR500's have run at national level.
....
You've gotta let that one go. Like everyone keeps saying: It's worth much, much less than you seem to think it is worth.
-
Without stirring the pot, a 1984 RC 500 with a standard PJ carb fitted, this I gotta see.
-
:D
You're absolutely correct, Kevin: the "major components" rule has been gone for several years now.
But we all have to pretend it still exists, because without it, nobody has a legal bike...
OK Nathan when was the major components rule in the MOMS last and when was there a mention of consumable parts etc. There was a complete rewrite for the 2012 MOMS but I'm still trying to find any mention of consumable parts.
Also please note an Officials "Duty of Care" to licence holders is to enforce rules and regulations to a reasonable standard and not ignore them.
-
Without stirring the pot, a 1984 RC 500 with a standard PJ carb fitted, this I gotta see.
Three different 84 RC's I have photos of have PJ's. I don't have a shot of the reputedly full works bike Leisk rode in 84 to have a look at that one.
I believe that bike may have been on show at Broadford on 2012.
There is a magazine article scan from the time earlier in the thread that states explicitly they were using a production model carburettor.
-
:DYou're absolutely correct, Kevin: the "major components" rule has been gone for several years now.
But we all have to pretend it still exists, because without it, nobody has a legal bike...
OK Nathan when was the major components rule in the MOMS last and when was there a mention of consumable parts etc. There was a complete rewrite for the 2012 MOMS but I'm still trying to find any mention of consumable parts.
Also please note an Officials "Duty of Care" to licence holders is to enforce rules and regulations to a reasonable standard and not ignore them.
It's been gone since before 2009. You'd need someone with a better collection of old MoMS than myself to dig through and find it's last appearance.
Based on what's written, ALL components must be of the correct period (or carry over parts).
The good news is that it gets rid of Fatbars and unbreakable levers.
The bad news is that we've all got to hunt down 1984-spec tyres....
-------
Momus, production 1984 model carb, or production 1985 model? You need to prove that the PJ (or something identical to it) was available as a 1984 model part.
You may have convinced yourself of this, but you've failed convince anyone else, so far.
-
18.6.0.2 for all major components for 2010 mom's.
I love the fact that your debating a class that was the pursuit of myself and very hard band of workers from the Qvmx to have endorsed by MA for the 2009 mom's.
simple rules work for all, unless your trying to bend them.
sorry I said I was not going to comment anymore, but all the experts are a complete crack up.
I will ride my pre85 bike for fun, and it's stock standard with fat bars lol
-
Nathan, my information, not all presented here, says the 1984 RC500 carburettor was the unit used on the 1985 CR250.
They may have been available to Honda in 1983.
The CR250 carbs were available, retail, over the counter in 1984. I'm not allowing for hair splitting over the various calibration parts but it is the same die cast carby body.
This means a savvy privateer, perhaps racing out of a Honda dealership, could have fitted a carby identical to the RC500 unit in 1984.
-
Without stirring the pot, a 1984 RC 500 with a standard PJ carb fitted, this I gotta see.
Three different 84 RC's I have photos of have PJ's. I don't have a shot of the reputedly full works bike Leisk rode in 84 to have a look at that one.
I believe that bike may have been on show at Broadford on 2012.
There is a magazine article scan from the time earlier in the thread that states explicitly they were using a production model carburettor.
I've got a few mags with Leisks "84 Cr 500 in it, all running round slides.
He did use a '85 model towards the end of '84 with a PJ, but it was a '85 model.
I'll try and scan them on here.
I guess the hard thing to comprehend about the RC 500 is that in that era the Honda GP works bikes where pure one off, hand built, unobtainium, then for HRC to drop a $100 production carb on it seem a hard pill to swallow. But I've been wrong before. I wouldn't rely on a magazine caption to a photo as being correct information... The current ADB reckons a 1993 CR500 has a powervalve fitted...
-
18.6.0.2 for all major components for 2010 mom's.
I love the fact that your debating a class that was the pursuit of myself and very hard band of workers from the Qvmx to have endorsed by MA for the 2009 mom's.
simple rules work for all, unless your trying to bend them.
sorry I said I was not going to comment anymore, but all the experts are a complete crack up.
;D Brings back some funny memories...
-
Without stirring the pot, a 1984 RC 500 with a standard PJ carb fitted, this I gotta see.
Three different 84 RC's I have photos of have PJ's. I don't have a shot of the reputedly full works bike Leisk rode in 84 to have a look at that one.
I believe that bike may have been on show at Broadford on 2012.
There is a magazine article scan from the time earlier in the thread that states explicitly they were using a production model carburettor.
I've got a few mags with Leisks "84 Cr 500 in it, all running round slides.
He did use a '85 model towards the end of '84 with a PJ, but it was a '85 model.
I'll try and scan them on here.
I guess the hard thing to comprehend about the RC 500 is that in that era the Honda GP works bikes where pure one off, hand built, unobtainium, then for HRC to drop a $100 production carb on it seem a hard pill to swallow. But I've been wrong before. I wouldn't rely on a magazine caption to a photo as being correct information... The current ADB reckons a 1993 CR500 has a powervalve fitted...
Leisk may have only rode a HRC500 once in Australia, other times on a production bike.
Why would they not use the $100 carby if it was better than the previous black magnesium round slide that cost a bomb?
By '86 works bikes were very much production based- the production carby on a works bike was a good example of this change and probably good advertising leverage.
-
Without stirring the pot, a 1984 RC 500 with a standard PJ carb fitted, this I gotta see.
Three different 84 RC's I have photos of have PJ's. I don't have a shot of the reputedly full works bike Leisk rode in 84 to have a look at that one.
I believe that bike may have been on show at Broadford on 2012.
There is a magazine article scan from the time earlier in the thread that states explicitly they were using a production model carburettor.
I've got a few mags with Leisks "84 Cr 500 in it, all running round slides.
He did use a '85 model towards the end of '84 with a PJ, but it was a '85 model.
I'll try and scan them on here.
I guess the hard thing to comprehend about the RC 500 is that in that era the Honda GP works bikes where pure one off, hand built, unobtainium, then for HRC to drop a $100 production carb on it seem a hard pill to swallow. But I've been wrong before. I wouldn't rely on a magazine caption to a photo as being correct information... The current ADB reckons a 1993 CR500 has a powervalve fitted...
Why would they not use the $100 carby if it was better than the previous black magnesium round slide that cost a bomb?
That's just it, it's no better than a round slide, Honda are the only manufacturer to use them, everyone else stuck with the Kehein round slides until '88 when the PWK arrived, and that's been the carb of choice for 28 yrs. (in various forms)
My point is with everything else on those bikes right down to the washers under the sideplate bolts being hand made titanium or magnesium or whatever elseium, I would have thought the carb (a fairly vital component on the track to GP glory) would also have the same amount of love poured into it. Perhaps the original works magnesium carb you speak of has gone to magnesium heaven and a cast alloy one has been substituted by the bikes owner to keep the bike running.
-
evo550 all the photos I've seen from the day taken in the GP pits show the flat slide carby on '84 RC500's. The previous RC's sported the black round slide thing.
The museum specimens, which are not ridden also have silver flat slides.
Magazine articles of the day also go to some lengths to point out the production origins of the carby on the 84 RC500.
It is irrelevant that you think the PJ is no better.
-
18.6.0.2 for all major components for 2010 mom's.
I love the fact that your debating a class that was the pursuit of myself and very hard band of workers from the Qvmx to have endorsed by MA for the 2009 mom's.
simple rules work for all, unless your trying to bend them.
sorry I said I was not going to comment anymore, but all the experts are a complete crack up.
I will ride my pre85 bike for fun, and it's stock standard with fat bars lol
Get rid of the fatbars. They don't belong on any VMX bike.
-
Nathan, my information, not all presented here, says the 1984 RC500 carburettor was the unit used on the 1985 CR250.
They may have been available to Honda in 1983.
The CR250 carbs were available, retail, over the counter in 1984. I'm not allowing for hair splitting over the various calibration parts but it is the same die cast carby body.
This means a savvy privateer, perhaps racing out of a Honda dealership, could have fitted a carby identical to the RC500 unit in 1984.
1. Was the carb you could buy in 1984 a 1985 model part?
2. If so, do you not think it's odd that it has escaped the attention entire OzVMX brains trust? Blokes like JohnnyO, KTM47 and Middo have been around the sport for a long time, with much more than just a passing interest.
3. If you are withholding information, then why are you continuing to debate this? Either shut up and put your submission in to MA, or lay it all out here. Claiming that you have more info without disclosing it, makes it sound like you're bluffing.
If you want to win the argument on OzVMX to gain support, then you wouldn't be playing secret squirrel.
If you don't care about winning the argument on OzVMX, then you will simply put your submission in.
4. It's not impossible, but I find the idea of a mid-80s works 500 having a 38mm carb to be unlikely.
Plus everything Evo550 just said.
-
18.6.0.2 for all major components for 2010 mom's.
I love the fact that your debating a class that was the pursuit of myself and very hard band of workers from the Qvmx to have endorsed by MA for the 2009 mom's.
simple rules work for all, unless your trying to bend them.
sorry I said I was not going to comment anymore, but all the experts are a complete crack up.
I will ride my pre85 bike for fun, and it's stock standard with fat bars lol
The Evolution Class first appeared in the 2004 MOMS and was run in Australia at the Thumper Nats and then the ThunderX series in Qld from about 1996 before that.
The class was included as an Australian Championship classes in the 2010 MOMS. So maybe that is what you are talking about. Maybe you should check your facts before posting.
Also I don't think fat bars are legal either but that isn't a major issue as there are other things that appear to have become acceptable.
I still haven't been told were "consumable components" is mentioned.
-
sorry Kev, have a look for the pre 85 class at the 2009 Nationals held at Conondale, Yes I oversaw the event and chaired the committeee that ran them and yes I oversaw the application for the introduction of pre85 to the mom's from the QVMX, they are facts.
-
i will now ban myself for good,
say what you like, type what you like and just keep repeating yourselves, someone will listen, eventually.
-
sorry Kev, have a look for the pre 85 class at the 2009 Nationals held at Conondale, Yes I oversaw the event and chaired the committeee that ran them and yes I oversaw the application for the introduction of pre85 to the mom's from the QVMX, they are facts.
Yes you are right!!!! I got Pre 85 and Evolution mixed up.
I was also wrong on another front. The Evolution Class has always been in the MOMS as an Australian Championships.
-
18.6.0.2 for all major components for 2010 mom's.
I love the fact that your debating a class that was the pursuit of myself and very hard band of workers from the Qvmx to have endorsed by MA for the 2009 mom's.
simple rules work for all, unless your trying to bend them.
sorry I said I was not going to comment anymore, but all the experts are a complete crack up.
I will ride my pre85 bike for fun, and it's stock standard with fat bars lol
The Pre 85 class first appeared in the MOMS in 2008 (not 2009)