i thought nothing more than saying it was a modified Elsie pipe and it was bought in 75, thus pre 75."I'll see you and raise you one" ;D
Geoff, I as well as countless others do just race for fun but by some weird happening if I/they ever found my/themselves at the pointy end it'd be wrong to be denied because of a rule book technicality.
Just a thought......Hmmmmm. Certainly has merit ;). I can think of some additional benefits other than just rules. But I can also think of a downside. It would have to be thought through. I would be very dependant on the group and group dynamics.
When it comes to scrutineering why cant the riders of the class (eg pre75 125) scrutinize each others bikes(as a group) at the start of the day. If all riders in that class agree the bikes are legal to race against each, then go racing. If one or more riders find fault(s) with a bike in there own class then all the other riders are there to say yes or no to whether the bike is ok to race or not. All this happens before the racing starts and once it is sorted you have no problems at the end of the day.
An official would need to be present at any objection to give a final decision or at least be an unbias judge.
Most of us know what is legal/illegal in our class and concerning the gray areas of the rules if all agree on the day to race each other then what more can you say.
Just a thought.
Just a thought......Hmmmmm. Certainly has merit ;). I can think of some additional benefits other than just rules. But I can also think of a downside. It would have to be thought through. I would be very dependant on the group and group dynamics.
When it comes to scrutineering why cant the riders of the class (eg pre75 125) scrutinize each others bikes(as a group) at the start of the day. If all riders in that class agree the bikes are legal to race against each, then go racing. If one or more riders find fault(s) with a bike in there own class then all the other riders are there to say yes or no to whether the bike is ok to race or not. All this happens before the racing starts and once it is sorted you have no problems at the end of the day.
An official would need to be present at any objection to give a final decision or at least be an unbias judge.
Most of us know what is legal/illegal in our class and concerning the gray areas of the rules if all agree on the day to race each other then what more can you say.
Just a thought.
Probably, most of us agree, "too many rules = too many hassles", but it solves nothing as it stands since the rule is already there.I say get rid of this rule alltogether. I doubt anything could be written without a loophole of some sort or penalizing someone for nothing.
It's a very real scenario for those who live a long way from the action. There's already a precedent. Something almost identical happened to John Boag at the WA Nats over bolts instead of rivets. My perception of that action is that it had a massive impact on pre75 racing, esp at Nats level. People rightly think, "If thats how they're going to play, I'm out of here". We can ill-afford another like action.The old bolts versus rivets myth again.
PS, GMC yr pipes are very tastefully done, blending modern pipe designs w era-sympathetic lines extremely well in a way most of us would regard as entirely appropriate.Thanks JC, your checks in the mail ;D
Much the same as having a round section swingarm instead of square box on a pre 70 DT1, not performance enhancing, but the parts must be of the era.
apologies to MXA for the unauthorised use of material..........Priceless ;D
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn38/mainline_bucket/IMG.jpg
This story refers to the pre 65 CZ twinport which has a funny sort of one-piece sprocket / brake hub with a ¾ alloy hub riveted to it. By the late seventies they had the more conventional style hub with a normal style sprocket bolted on. Two very different types of hubs that are described as either bolted or rivetedThis brings in another anomoly in the rulebook. While Peter Lawson (there, I've outed the most pedantic man in VMX)
With all due respect, the point is that the part was a non-performance-enhancing part & the protest was pedantic, but was upheld because of what the rule said - precisely the issue at stake here.With respect John, the rule covering the CZ hub in pre 65 is perfectly adequate, and in fact allows quite a number of post '65 hubs such as REH, Alloy and Mag Rickman and others. The problem with the Boagy decision was not that it was "upheld because of what the rule said" as you state, but because the rule was either inadvertantly or deliberately misinterpreted by officials.
"The old bolts versus rivets myth again.
Never has a protest been lodged on the basis that rivets were
replaced by bolts."
With all due respect, the point is that the part was a non-performance-enhancing part & the protest was pedantic, but was upheld because of what the rule said - precisely the issue at stake here.
And it had a massive impact on the sport - precisely what we're trying to avoid happening again.
The options seem to be either of the following:
1) Delete the rule altogether (with nothing in its place)
2) Replace it w a rule banning low-boy pipes only
3) Reword the original rule to read something like,
"Exhausts may be modifed but must generally follow the lines of pipes
available in the era"
Sometimes your ignorance astounds me Freaky.Priceless ;D
Fill in that little post back rule change thing that comes in the MOms
Sometimes your ignorance astounds me Freaky. :omeH Why ?
i dont understand what all the fuss is about with all the pipe crap.Freaky, once again you go off on a rant, knowing forkall about what you are discussing. If you had followed the thread on this and the BigKs Husky topic you would know that the MoMs definition of what is allowable is totally inadequate. The fuss is to create intelligent debate and offer up alternative wording or interpretation to prevent some future pedantic troublemaker from protesting a legitimate bike out of a rightful win.
if they only need to meet this db thats the only thing requiredThis shows your ignorance of the subject. Being a newbie, sometimes it's better to shut up and learn from people who 1:have been around a bit longer than you, 2: Know what they are talking about, 3:can put up an intelligent, well structured argument and offer an alternative view and 4:Can put a post together with few if any spelling, grammar and syntax errors, something beyond your reach. ;)
Quotei dont understand what all the fuss is about with all the pipe crap.Freaky, once again you go off on a rant, knowing forkall about what you are discussing. If you had followed the thread on this and the BigKs Husky topic you would know that the MoMs definition of what is allowable is totally inadequate. The fuss is to create intelligent debate and offer up alternative wording or interpretation to prevent some future pedantic troublemaker from protesting a legitimate bike out of a rightful win.Quoteif they only need to meet this db thats the only thing requiredThis shows your ignorance of the subject. ;)
The debate should only be ensure the rule states one basic thing, any pre 75 exhaust can be any thing and any lines you dam well please so long as it was available prior to 75 or what ever you cut off is.I agree, that's what I've been saying all along. The following excerpt from the AHRMA handbook covers it, in my opinion. By all means use a fat pipe but you'd better have some sort of photographic evidence that the design was around prior to 1975.
So can I paint the pipe on my IT pink?Is it Period Pink or Floro Punk Pink? ;D
Delete the stupid rule.Settle down Mark, my udnerstanding is your bike and the DG's would meet the current rules ;) ;D.
And if someone does fit a fatty to their YZA like in that issue of VMX magazine then we can all tell him what a wanker he is.
Just don't change the rules to ban the readily available pipes.
My IT400D pipe was very rusty and looked like it had been used as a hockey stick.
GMC didn't have time to make me a pipe and so I just bought a DG online from Dirt Overstock.
Don't stuff with the rules and end up banning these DG pipes.
You'll just be pissing a lot of people off for the sake of asthetics.
I like the following excerpt from the AHRMA handbook covering pipes..........
"Any replacement of the original expansion chamber must be of period design, with only two cones maximum of constant angle. The center section must be of constant diameter and the head pipe must be of constant diameter until it meets the opening cone. Fitting a more modern expansion chamber will move the machine to the Sportsman class".
"18.3.0.4 "Exhaust may be modified but must generally follow original lines."I guess most of us agree that the above stanza just doesn't work, no matter what slant is put on it. It creates more problems than it solves. We all also agree that there were numerous different aftermarket pipe concepts available to the race during the pre '75 period and that the above excerpt fails to recognise that. I've been trying to figure out a way of rewording it in a way that covers all the relevent issues but no matter what I wrote, it didn't work for whatever reason.
I bet they don't have these rule problems!