OzVMX Forum
Clubroom => General Discussion => Topic started by: olddirtbikes on August 11, 2009, 06:01:36 pm
-
Hi all,
To all those who were involved what did you think of the bulls..t protest after the last race of the day which held every thing up for a couple of hours? The first protest against the bike that ran second in that race and was subsequently disqualified was because it had a set of longer than standard fork caps!!!. The protestor claimed that they INCREASED fork travel and they should not be allowed in pre 78 class. Unfortunately both the protestor and the adjudicating officials are not aware all the extensions do is to raise the air valve up a little for easy access (NO PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENTS!!). I have a set on a bike at home, they came from the U.S. and I believe they were made by Wabco, were readily available as period aftermarket parts (Legal?). Until clarification on this point I will have to take them off before the Queensland titles or risk a possible protest against myself. The second and third protests were against the two bikes that ran third and fourth. It related to the modified rear brake torque arm. The claim that the torque arm running up to the frame was only available on the 'C' model and gives an unfair advantage shows the inability of the protestor and officials to comprehend the spirit of a legal period modification. The advantage that was supposedly gained is non existant due to the dynamics of cable operated rear brakes. According to the protestor no one did this modification to their bikes in 1977 (Big call worldwide!!!). Bikes with a cable operated rear brake do not gain any advantage from this modification any way, but again I had better change them all back before another protest. In the mean time I will be asking M.A. to clear these matters up.
-
Check the other related post on the issue, see what ya reckon! 8)
-
Mate, have a look in the competition thread as it is being covered ( quite well ) . You are wrong on a couple of things. The three bikes protested are as follows. Two were C models with B tanks on them. The third had a complete C front end consisting of rubber mounted triple clamps and longer/ better forks. All were illegal and dealt with. Also the bike that ran second in that race was not involved in a protest as it was #894 that was second overall ( and in the last race if i remember rightly). You may need to get the full story before writing anything else . Cheers, Brad.
-
Whoa , I left after racing had finished and thought it was all over rover ???
-
hey brad, you had a good meeting. you will be pissed by the time you have a beer out of all of your trophies!
Just to clear up the official protest statements made by the protester. i cant quote them but i read every word which was hand written in blue pen by the protester.
FIRST BIKE. top tripple clamp from a 1978 model bike. air cap extensions on forks from a 1978 model bike.( told if items changed, bike then legal)
SECOND BIKE. brake stay arm attached to lower frame like a 1978 model bike.(told if brake stay arm is attached to swingarm, then bike legal.)
THIRD BIKE. brake stay arm attached to lower frame like a 1978 model bike.( told if brake stay arm attached to swing arm, then bike legal.)
-
http://ozvmx.com/community/index.php?topic=9067.0
-
yes aftemarket webco, white brothers, Protec etc extension air caps are period aftermarket accessories that dont increase travel at all and therefore are legal. OEM extension caps from 78 model bike i dont think would be legal.
just because a part is not a performance enchancement, it doesnt mean its ok to use it if its off a later model.
-
yes aftemarket webco, white brothers, Protec etc extension air caps are period aftermarket accessories that dont increase travel at all and therefore are legal. OEM extension caps from 78 model bike i dont think would be legal.
just because a part is not a performance enchancement, it doesnt mean its ok to use it if its off a later model.
Leith which model Suzuki's came with the extended cap?I only remember them as an aftermarket item.
Mxa's test on the 250 C doesn't show any extensions and says quote " identical cosmetic appearance" refering to 125 B forks.
-
The C models came with the extended fork caps. In the case of the 250 it was the C2.
Is the MXA test you refer to the 250c1 test with the alloy tank?
-
these suzukis had the extension caps as standard fitment
Part # = 51351-41220
Part Description = CAP ASSEMBLY,FORK
Model Count = 3
RM125C 1978
RM250C2 1978 1/2
RM400C 1978
-
The C models came with the extended fork caps. In the case of the 250 it was the C2.
Is the MXA test you refer to the 250c1 test with the alloy tank?
Yes Johnny correct .I dont think they tested the C2.
-
Hi,
Brad as you can see from Kanes reply I did get all my facts right before I made my previous statement. Nothing was said in the protest about the bikes being 'C' model bikes dressed up as 'B' models. It was the Fork caps top tripple clamp and the rear brake torque arms. I believe it should be you who gets your facts right before making some of the statements you have here. So I will accept your apology in advance.
Neither Kane or anyone else went over the protestors bike with a fine tooth comb as stated elsewhere. I know Kane or one of the others could have lodged a counter protest and most likely had it upheld, but that would have brought them down to the protestors level. We all could have left to go home about midnight then.
I believe Big K said it nicely 'what a load of crap', kane and the others were not concerned about tin pot $2.00 medals they just wanted to get their bikes and get started on a seven hour trip home.
Regards, :)
-
Hi :).
If i am wrong on any point i will apologise straight up. Probably a couple of things that have been left out of this debate is the fact that like you and Kane have said, only one specific thing was pointed out as being wrong. This is because that is all one needs to prove the bike is incorrect.
So to say this in a different way if an rm125 C with a B tank on it was protested on in pre78, the protester would only have to pick one part/ reason why its illegal. Such as triple clamps.
I will apologise for my previous post as it has a bit of anger on it. So sorry mate.
So also be aware if you have the alleged rm125 C with a B tank and you were told if you change the triples that it will be legal, you have been miss informed.
All the best.
-
As someone a bit closer to the process than Olddirtbikes I'll back Brad in his statement that the torque arms and triple clamps were the only things mentioned in the disqualification as they were the only points needed before a decision was made. I spoke to the eligibility steward this morning and he confirmed that the bikes in question were clearly C models masquerading as B's and in the opinion of the stewards deliberately changed in an attempt to deceive. They weren't the only ones spotted but they were the ones caught out and protested. Simple. For this sport to work people have to get their bikes correct. The rules are simple...build your bikes to suit whatever division the bike fits into and if you aren't sure of something...ask.
It makes a mockery of the rulebook to have bikes that don't conform to the rules. It's so f*cking easy to build your bike to a particular class so if you want to race in pre '78, go find an A or B model RM125. To dress an RM125C as a B and trying to get away with racing it in pre 1978 is just plain wrong and yes, I'll say it...cheating, no matter how much spin you want to put on it. If you reckon the protesters bike is dodgy you should have protested. It makes a mockery of the protest system when the bloke who made the decision to protest is criticised and vilified for doing the absolutely correct thing. To slam him on a forum is uncalled for and damaging to the sports image. Does that mean that every time someone places a legitimate protest the guilty parties mates will now go on an anonymous shit slinging exercise against the protester? There's no excuse for cheating.....none. If you don't follow the rules you should be big enough to deal with the consequences, just as Kane did.
After 22 years of dealing with eligibility issues in this sport I'm sick to death of Neville Know-Alls coming out and blabbering about this bike and that bike ....after the event. If you reckon something is not right deal with it through the proper channels at the time of the offence, not slag blokes who shouldn't have to defend their actions on a public forum a week later.
-
Whoa firko, steady up. you are making statements that you can not know. if a bike has an illegal component, yes we can work out that it is illegal. BUT YOU AND THE STEWARD CAN NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS TO THE REASONS WHY THE ILLEGAL PARTS ARE ON THE BIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
some quotes from your reply." CLEARLY C MODELS" "MASQUERADING AS B'S"
and the one that really shits me, " OPINION OF THE STEWARDS... DELIBERATELY CHANGED IN AN ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE "
I bought my rm 125 b 5 years ago and have always though it was and is a b model. i have never changed anything on it.
Since the titles and cause i love vmx and want to do the right thing by the sport i have really had a good investigative look at my bike.
the tripple clamps and forks are b. back wheel and hub etc are b.( the sprocket is different on the c.) no extended air caps. the swingarm i reckon is c model. i have sanded the paint off and someone has welded a brake stay arm bracket onto the frame. i am getting a bit of alloy to weld to the swingarm to mount the arm there. on the c there was a bracket to hold the tank on. i cant find evidence on mine. i really think it is a b.
we can all point the finger if something is incorrect but i dont think anyone can deduce the reasoning why it was done.
-
Sorry for the "decieve part" that's going a bit far.... However I'm big enough to apologise for my strong language. I do however stick to my main point that there are no excuses for ilegal bikes, even if it was a mistake on your behalf. If you've had your bike 5 years I'd have thought you'd have worked out what you have by now. As the saying goes, ignorance isn't an excuse. My main problem is the number of "experts" coming in with their own take on it. That's why I spoke to the steward before I posted.
-
There are alot more eyes on this forum than you realise and people know people and what they have done. Seems that olddirtbikes is one of the bikes in question, being a C model rm125 with a B tank on it. So how do you explain this bike Allan?
'spose i should have asked this differently rather than say it straight out, but i will leave it as is and await your reply first so as not to be changing things and the thread not making sense.
-
no prob firko. yeh our legal system states that ignorance is no excuse.
it has never tweaked to look if my bike is a c until this protest.
i know that the a,b,c model rm has a large interchangeability of parts but i have always bought b parts and have never had anything that has not fit.
i still have no prob with the protester or any of this.
i believe this discussion is healthy for the sport.
this was my first aust titles in anything. i reckon if you thought you were in with a chance to get a placing or win, you would have to be a dickhead to turn up with a bike that you knew was illegal.
firko how about some more articles in vmx like the one where "the red mist came over you" when you warmed up a mates new ts400 before he rode it. And you dropped it! i still read it every month and piss myself laughing!
-
The Nats are a serious thing, its not just a club day. If you were a rider who thought that you would be at the pointy end of the field and a contender for a top 3 placing, this should make it even more important that you had previously 100% double and triple checked what model bike you actually had before entering in class, and not just base your thought on what model you own by what the guy you bought it off said it was or what others said it was by just looking at a photo of it? I think the first step in identifying what model you own would be to contact a dealer and to ID the bike by engine/frame number or find a reliable source with engine/frame numbers of the particular model you own. Well thats what i would do if i wanted to be 100% sure my bike was the right year for what ever class and then i know what parts are right for that year model and whats not and then i would never get my self in the situation of being protested against for having a bike that is a 78 model when i thought it was a 77 for example.
And for the ones who purposely cheat and try to disguise a bike as something its not, well as Firko says, theres no excuse for cheating.
This has gotta be a big wake up call for everyone, or at least the people who took things too casually or purposely out to bend the rules.
-
Hi,
Thanks Kane, well put. Firko, I think you need to stick to the facts.
Brad, Thanks. As I stated I have tried to state the facts as best I know.
And Brad If you are going to write my name could you at least spell it right,
one 'L' Alan. :)
-
Hey Brad,
which bike in particular are you talking about? I have 1 A model, 5 b models a couple of C's a couple of N's and I just got a 500 and a couple of 465's.
-
'O' Brad,
nearly forgot there is a couple of 400's there somewhere.
-
Olddirtbikes just to clarify was one of the protested bikes yours ???
-
I take it thats a NO then :o
-
I started posting about this subject to back up a mate ( as you do) from personal attacks and little or no constructive criticism . Im finally done with it ::) :-X
Its threads like these that start other threads that start with 'Where's Firko' or 'Where's Doc'. Stuff that.
Hey Brad,
which bike in particular are you talking about? I have 1 A model, 5 b models a couple of C's a couple of N's and I just got a 500 and a couple of 465's.
???
Seems that olddirtbikes is one of the bikes in question, being a C model rm125 with a B tank on it. So how do you explain this bike Allan?
Is that not specific enough? Dont worry about it Alan.
-
I bought my rm 125 b 5 years ago and have always though it was and is a b model. i have never changed anything on it.
the tripple clamps and forks are b. back wheel and hub etc are b.( the sprocket is different on the c.) no extended air caps. the swingarm i reckon is c model. i have sanded the paint off and someone has welded a brake stay arm bracket onto the frame. i am getting a bit of alloy to weld to the swingarm to mount the arm there. on the c there was a bracket to hold the tank on. i cant find evidence on mine. i really think it is a b.
we can all point the finger if something is incorrect but i dont think anyone can deduce the reasoning why it was done.
Kane , sounds like you have a B model with a C swingarm.The previous owner might have had an aftermarket arm and aftermarket brake arm and swapped the aftermarket arm for a stock C. Either way sounds like its only the swimgarm.Didn't anyone check the frame and Engine numbers?????derrrrr
[/quote]
-
I bought my rm 125 b 5 years ago and have always though it was and is a b model. i have never changed anything on it.
the tripple clamps and forks are b. back wheel and hub etc are b.( the sprocket is different on the c.) no extended air caps. the swingarm i reckon is c model. i have sanded the paint off and someone has welded a brake stay arm bracket onto the frame. i am getting a bit of alloy to weld to the swingarm to mount the arm there. on the c there was a bracket to hold the tank on. i cant find evidence on mine. i really think it is a b.
we can all point the finger if something is incorrect but i dont think anyone can deduce the reasoning why it was done.
Kane , sounds like you have a B model with a C swingarm.The previous owner might have had an aftermarket arm and aftermarket brake arm and swapped the aftermarket arm for a stock C. Either way sounds like its only the swimgarm.Didn't anyone check the frame and Engine numbers?????derrrrr
[/quote]
Motomaniac you have had a hell of a lot to say on this subject in both threads (as is your right as a forum member) Im just curious were you at the event ? or do your opinions come from an armchair 2 states away ???
-
Which two subjects? but yes my opinions are my opinions not based on seeing the bikes in question but then I don't need to see an RM125C to know that it doesn't have 40mm or actually 1mm more travel than an RM125B.I saw them back in the day and still see them at races now.
Now I have a question for you .Do you know why someone didnt check the eng and frame numbers or why no enthusiasts seem to have any old mags lying around to refer too?
Aren't you from across the tasman.Do you have these issues over there?
-
There were 2 threads on this subject the first is now locked.
I dont think the issue was travel it was that the components were fitted from a 78C model and the Class is PRE 78
However this has been thrashed out in both threads .
I was at the meeting and entered and rode the first race in this class . I saw all the bikes concerned , know the protester well and support his right to protest , as that is the procedure as laid down by the governing body . I met one of the protested owners at the event on day one and have raced him before ,they are both good blokes and fair competitors .Im sorry i dont know the other 2 people who were protested but one of them has posted on here and has said he accepts the desicion , fair play to him.
The thing what suprises me the most is that these bikes have not been picked up earlier at other meetings ??? I stand to be corrected but i think i have seen all these bikes at other meetings over the last couple of years ( and i only do a couple of meetings in Aussie a year )
I as a competitor take responsibility for not pointing out to fellow competitors potential illegalitys with their machines when if i see them.
Maybe instead of all coming on here after the fact and creating a shit storm while defending our mates rights we all take the time to monitor ours and our mates bikes then protest can be avoided .
In NZ we dont generally have to many issues but then we dont have governing body , we are self policing and i personally would push for a claiming rule rather than a protest system as i believe this would make people check their bikes more thourgh.
Its not all beer and skittles over here though and some people will push the limits , its human nature.
I very much enjoy racing in Australia and if finances allowed i would be there every other weekend , You have imho better racing through the pack over there , but our top riders are quicker (runs for cover )
You have a governing body , rule book and a system that seems to work , if its not working your the members change the system.
Comments like "he would have won anyway " dont cut it . If a bike is deemed outside the rules by the officals then accept it or move to have the rule changed but dont shoot the messanger.
Bill Doe #219
-
It seems that it is quite possible and indeed likely that ignorance about the differences between a B and C model RM125 has caused this regretable situation. But of course, ignorance is not a defence when a National title is at stake and protesters should NOT be vilified if they have a genuine case to protest about.
I happen to know the differences between these two bikes pretty well, as it just so happened that my first true MX bike was an RM125C. But even if you didn't know the differences, it is really easy to find out what they were in old magazines.
In essence the main mechanical differences were:
RM125B
Alloy Tank
Steel (painted black) Swingarm
Non-Full Floating rear brake
Direct mounted handlebars, in line with the axis of the forks (forks could not be raise to improve steering)
RM125C
Plastic Tank
Alloy Swingarm
Full Floating rear brake
Rubber mounted handlebars, with offset mounting to allow forks to be adjusted up and down in the triple clamps. The new triple clamps also has a different offset to improve steering geometry.
It was a common thing (in 1978 and later) to mount a B model tank and plastics to a C, as they looked better.
The bottom line though (and no matter how much you may argue that some of these changes are not performance enhancements) is that 1978 parts are NOT legal when racing in the pre-78 class at the National level, because the compatibility issue is ERA based, not performance related.
-
I agree that "he would have won anyway" doesn't cut it.
I got involved in the first thread when the reason was given that the C forks had more travel.
And then kept in when the Maico became part of the discussion,77 Maico's having more travel both ends than RM B or C.
The carry over models is also asking for trouble in my opinion but was explained to me - I dont agree with the 75CR having a barrel that was available in 74.
but if it s then a RM B and C are as close and people down here do think that a C is a carry over model.
Anyway I was mainly concerned about the bike with the C forks.Spring rates and rubber mounts are in my book not enough especially when so many bikes have PROTAPER BARS etc. Jump 6months out of the ERA and you are disqualified but jump 15 years with bars ,shocks pd valves and its OK.
I see the whole scenario as potentially damaging to the sport and I think thta warrants anyone whos interested in the sport surviving having a say .But if the majority want to forget it and have another beer thats fine too.I like modern MX as well so I can piss off any time I want too.
By the wayOur GCR's for pre 78 say"for this reason ,we do not classify motorcycles strictlyby the year they were produced, but by some similar characteristics that were possessed by the majority of these first- generation long-travel motorcycles,such as suspension travel" B and C model RM are the same frame and suspension travel.
Nice talking to yoy TM
-
yeah i was gonna mention this earlier as its been mentioned a couple of times. 'hes a good rider, he would win on anything' is not an excuse to have a bike with illegal parts on it.
-
Update: I thought a bit more about the statement that the B and C having the same suspension travel, as my memory was that they didn't have the same rear suspension. So I got out my copy of Dirt Bike (June 78) which had the RM125C test in it.
Turns out that the C model had longer eye to eye length shocks (approx 20mm) and a relocated top shock mount to take this into account without unduly raising the seat height. The longer shocks did give additional rear suspension travel over the B model and the frames are not identical.
Just thought you might like to know. ;)
And just for the record - I think that the use of blatently modern designs like Pro-taper bars and wide footpegs on Vintage bikes should be eliminated as soon as possible. For the life of me I can't understand why they are allowed at all.... ::)
-
Hi,
TM Bill yes I do own the other bike.
And Brad the bike has a 'B' frame, motor, front end, tank, seat, wheels & pipe. The rear guard is a 'c' model.'B' rear guards were not in stock when I ordered the plastics. I guess I am saying putting a Roles Royce bonnet emblem on a VW does not make it a Roles Royce.
Bill did you hear that Kiwi's found two more things they can use sheep for ..............wool and meat. Sorry could not resist a chance to have a go at a Kiwi.
Hi Ajay, you forgot to mention that 'B' models were available with a alloy swing arm.
regards,
Alan
-
Yes AJAY I am reading that same test also.I stand corrected on the extra 10mm of rear travel but that is only 10mm more than a B and still under a stock 77 maico ,and most of all under 9".
I don't think that that is as much difference as the CR125M1 that was mentioned and is specifically in the rule book.The M1 has different cylinder with bridged intake ,longer forks ,diff pipe and bigger carb for eg.
The swingarm on the C is the same dimensions contrary to an earlier post. and it would be easy to put slightly longer shocks on the B anyway.Theres heaps of bikes out there with longer shocks.
Sounds like to me that Kane and Alan have B model bikes anyway, one with C forks and clamp and the other with Cbrake rode(or aftermarket) and C swingarm.
I reckon these guys got it rough.
But what do I know?
Are you doing some TYA stuff or not? The bass on "Love like a man" is just you.
-
I only ever had one question, in any of these threads, who checked the frame numbers and if any one was serious they would have posted theres up here by now, basically saving 5 pages of reply 's ?? . ;D ;D
-
Hi Ajay, you forgot to mention that 'B' models were available with a alloy swing arm.
regards,
Alan
Are you saying alloy swingarms were availabe as a stock suzuki part or aftermarket?
Certainly there were aftermarket swingarms available at the time (DG etc...), but I am pretty certain that Suzuki did not offer an alloy swingarm as stock option (why would they?). If you have proof that they did, please show us. I'd love to be enlightened.
As far as the "carry over model" discussion goes, the C was seen at the time as a significant improvement over the B. While it did have many components in common, it did actually have many significant and fundamental mechanical changes, so I don't believe that arguement is valid in this case. It certainly was not a carry over model in the same sense as a 1975 TM125 was in realtion to a 1974 TM125.
Also, it was the case that while the differences between the B and C had little overall cosmetic effect (as they did also in the change from the A to the B), the tests of the day were in no doubt whatsoever that the C was a far more effective MX bike than the B in terms of on track performance.
All these things ad up to why the C model (or it's parts) aren't OK in pre-78, I guess. ;)
-
to TM bill
will i still be able to race my 76 RM125A at the VMX Taupo round with a set of 1977 38mm RA125 forks?? fitted,much like 77 38mm simons.
chris NZ
RMS eng
-
Hi
about the B and C bikes and their swingarms,suzuki did sell in 1977 a optional alloy swingarm for the RM125B,it is listed in the back of a parts book i have.part No is 61100-1871-019 looks like the C swingarm but has the fitting for the brake arm to bolt too.
chris NX
RMS eng
-
By the wayOur GCR's for pre 78 say"for this reason ,we do not classify motorcycles strictly by the year they were produced, but by some similar characteristics that were possessed by the majority of these first- generation long-travel motorcycles,such as suspension travel"
Yes AJAY a C is better than a B but so is a 75 CR better than a 74.
Are you suggesting that a B model fits the class but a C model is a second generation long travel bike as per the GCR's?
Are you suggesting that a C model because it has floating brake and 10mm more travel be classified in with 12" travel Husqvarna's,Maico's,YZG's and H's.
Pick up almost any 1977 year MXA and you will find alloy swingarms and floating rear brake kits for RMA's and B's.
This is not a personal attack AJAY.
-
Ajay you could buy an alloy swingarm through Suzuki in '77 as an optional extra, it's listed in the '77 RM125b parts book.
A mate of mine had one on his B in '77, it came painted black and had the bracket for the brake stay welded to the swingarm which is where they differ from a C arm. The C model has a floating brake with the bracket welded to the frame.
-
Hi
about the B and C bikes and their swingarms,suzuki did sell in 1977 a optional alloy swingarm for the RM125B,it is listed in the back of a parts book i have.part No is 61100-1871-019 looks like the C swingarm but has the fitting for the brake arm to bolt too.
chris NX
RMS eng
Well there you go! You DO learn something every day and thanks for the knowledge. ;D
Motomaniac, I am not registering any of the responses here as personal attacks (other than those which denegrated the protester for doing what he thought was right). I am merely trying to provide more info about the differences between the RMB and RMC and now, I too have learned something I didn't know, which is cool.
Of course isn't bringing YZG's and H's into the discussion is totally irrelevant as they are 1980 and 1981 models respectively?
And yes, there may also have been full floating brake kits for B models, although I don't specifically remember them in 1977. Did the two bikes that had full floating rear brakes have full width hubs or half width? If they had full width, they were C wheels, not modified Bs. And so it goes...
At the end of the day however, it comes down to whether the RM125C is accepted in the National GCRs as a valid pre-78 class bike or not. From what happened at Connondale, I gather it is not, despite your references to "your" GCRs.
Maybe you should make the case to the MA commissioners to have it included in pre-78, then it wouldn't be an issue anymore.
-
I reckon we've kicked this subject around way past its use by date. I think the lesson to be learned is that we should make certain our bikes are legal before we enter a particular class at a National title. Nobody likes being protested against or, for that matter, lodging protests so it's up to us to ensure the bike is right for its particular class before entering. If youre not sure, there's a pretty good network of knowledge to help you get it right before you enter right here on this forum.
Despite certain trains of thought that reckon that protesting is a low act, no matter how wrong the protested bike is, the system is in place to keep the 'playing field level' for every racer. What's the point of having classes or even a rulebook if we are allowed to use non compliant parts on our bikes. Imagine what would happen to our sport without those checks and balances.
I'm not Mother Theresa on the subject of ilegal bikes either. I've fudged the rules myself in the past as well as being a Nationals level examiner so I can identify with both sides of the argument.
-
AJAY I know , I was covering my own post as some people have viewed the on going disscussion as personal attacks.
The YZg's etc are relevant as those are the bike that RM125 C 's must compete against if they are not a first generation long travelbike.
There are three bikes , one was definitely a B with different components .Its seems that Kanes bike was also a B if you read his posts. It does have the B front end and rear hub.
Why have you called the GCR's my GCR's? Because I quoted them? ???
"for this reason ,we do not classify motorcycles strictly by the year they were produced, but by some similar characteristics that were possessed by the majority of these first- generation long-travel motorcycles,such as suspension travel"
-
Why have you called the GCR's my GCR's? Because I quoted them? ???
No, because you keep putting the word "our" in your description of the GCRs, which led me to believe that you meant something other than the National GCRs.
-
Why have you called the GCR's my GCR's? Because I quoted them? ???
No, because you keep putting the word "our" in your description of the GCRs, which led me to believe that you meant something other than the National GCRs.
I copied and pasted my original post .I said "our" because I was replying to TMBILL from NZ
-
firko i agree and i quote you. " it is up to us to make sure our bikes are legal"
The protest was upheld against my rm and i am in the process of getting it right for the qld titles coming up. This discussion is good because i am finding out and learning a lot of the differences between the b and c model rm's. thanks.
-
The YZg's etc are relevant as those are the bike that RM125 C 's must compete against if they are not a first generation long travelbike."
Same argument applies for 1978 YZ-Es, particularly the 125s. The changes to the YZ125D to create the YZ125E are similar to the changes between an RM125B to C: Alloy swing arm, minor frame mods, and a different barrel (and a few other detail differences, but nothing you'd write home about).
This is not a valid argument to allow the E model bikes into pre-78 - the changes might not look like a lot on paper, but they do make a significant difference to the bike (I'm considerably faster on my crappy E than on either of my much-better Ds). If RM125Cs are proven to be acceptable pre-78 race bikes, then I'll prove that YZ125Es are too - and we'll have made the whole category a complete joke...
It pays to remember that the era categories are strictly era based, not based on a set of technical specs (like Evo) despite what the pre-78 preamble says.
Yes, the 1978 models are generally badly outclassed as Evo bikes (erm, don't tell Dean Burt that ;)), but that's just the way that the cookie crumbles.
-
Just a thought ??? the 1975 TM sunburst models are not considered flow on models in pre 75 so they are in pre 78 , and probably the worst bike for the pre 78 class.
The point im making is that the 75 TMs are way closer in spec to their 1974 brothers than the 77 RMs are to the 78 RMs
Also as a worst bike in class situation the 75 TMs are a shit load less competitive in pre 78 than the 78 model RMs in EVO
In era racing there will always be a worst bike for the class but i think that the bike and class balance in your Australian rules is pretty good and as long as competitors stay within these rules then all will be well.
-
Just a thought ??? the 1975 TM sunburst models are not considered flow on models in pre 75 so they are in pre 78 , and probably the worst bike for the pre 78 class.
The point im making is that the 75 TMs are way closer in spec to their 1974 brothers than the 77 RMs are to the 78 RMs
Also as a worst bike in class situation the 75 TMs are a shit load less competitive in pre 78 than the 78 model RMs in EVO
In era racing there will always be a worst bike for the class but i think that the bike and class balance in your Australian rules is pretty good and as long as competitors stay within these rules then all will be well.
TM So does this mean that a 75 TM with 7 and 4 in suspension has to race against 9" travel bikes.Im not up with TM'S. I remember the first RM m's and s's .I would even call the RM125 75 theworst in the class , with cr250m1's anda few others.
Of course there will always be a worst bike in class I agree but a pre long tarvel bike shouldn t be in with long travel models.
As I said in the other topic that is now locked Im not sure about this flow on model rule but since then I have been considering Nathan S 's #33 reply to that topic.
Either way a guy who gets done for slightly different triple clamps ??? and now it seems that the other two bikes are B's as well with floating brakes.
As you said earlier TM you have seen these bikes around over the years and why wasn't something pointed out.
I dont think that the guy from down here thought well I'll drive to QLD and back,take week and a half off ,pay for me and the missus 's accom. my entry fees etc and see if I can trick them in the pre78 class.
For myself, I am as tall as Mike Bell (remember him ) and I change all my triple clamps from rubber sweep back style to solid directly over the fork style.Thats my prefered set up.I cant ride my YZ's with stock setup.I wonder if thats going to cause a protest.
Whatever. How do you think the kiwis wil go in MXdN?
-
I used to own a 1975 TM125 and my understanding was that this was one of the models that was classified to have "not changed" from the 1974 model and had been specifically allowed to compete in pre-74 competition. As you say, the 1975 TM was completely outclassed by even the first RM125, which was realeased sometime in late 1975.
I looked at the GCR's and there is no mention of the "M" model (which I think is the 1975) in the list, although there is mention of an "R" model, which is after the K (1973) and L (1974) models. Maybe that's a misprint?
Firko would know the answer to this one, maybe he can chime in here... ;)
-
I used to own a 1975 TM125 and my understanding was that this was one of the models that was classified to have "not changed" from the 1974 model and had been specifically allowed to compete in pre-74 competition. As you say, the 1975 TM was completely outclassed by even the first RM125, which was realeased sometime in late 1975.
I looked at the GCR's and there is no mention of the "M" model (which I think is the 1975) in the list, although there is mention of an "R" model, which is after the K (1973) and L (1974) models. Maybe that's a misprint?
Firko would know the answer to this one, maybe he can chime in here... ;)
Well so it should be. How could a 75 Honda get the okay but not the TM Suzi?
An M model RM and the later S version is long travel so it wouldn't be mentioned in pre 75.You'd think.
-
The answer is a log book. The concept is very simple, you have a a standard bike you log book it as a standard bike.You have modified the bike you PROVE the modifications are within in the period.Then you mail you application away and someone opens your envelope with reads it and makes a decision on the evidence YOU provide.Just because you got a modified bike through doesn't mean mine will sail through, it's all down to the evidence you provide.This works very well in road racing and has basicaly stopped all this carry on dead in it's tracks. Simple innit ;D
-
Well so it should be. How could a 75 Honda get the okay but not the TM Suzi?
An M model RM and the later S version is long travel so it wouldn't be mentioned in pre 75.You'd think.
No, only the TM models are mentioned in the pre-75 eligibility table.
-
TM So does this mean that a 75 TM with 7 and 4 in suspension has to race against 9" travel bikes.Im not up with TM'S.
If you're talking about '75 TM250s, then yep - they're only allowed to race with the pre-78 bikes, as they are too different to the 74 TM250s to be eligible for pre-75 racing.
And yes, they do suck as a pre-78 bike, just as they sucked in 1975 against the European bikes and the YZ-Bs and MX-Bs, etc.
Presumably, TM Bill was talking about the 250s, because I'm pretty sure that the 75 TM125 is an acceptable carry-over model.
Beware the spin about the two RM125s at the Nationals fully floating rear brakes, motomaniac. Several peple who are very knowledgable about Suzukis saw the bikes and commented to me that they were actually complete C model bikes with B tanks (as I said in my original post) - and these were not people involved with the protest, or even riding in the class at Conondale.
My Suzuki knowledge is very limited, but I was careful to make sure I was confident that my facts were correct before I started the (other) thread. ;)
-
The only major component changed on a 1975 TM125M was the swingarm which had saddle style shock mounts and more bracing. Changing to a 1974 swingarm makes them indistinguishable from 1974 model (except tank graphics) which is why they pass inspection at club level without much drama.
-
The answer is a log book. The concept is very simple, you have a a standard bike you log book it as a standard bike.You have modified the bike you PROVE the modifications are within in the period.Then you mail you application away and someone opens your envelope with reads it and makes a decision on the evidence YOU provide.Just because you got a modified bike through doesn't mean mine will sail through, it's all down to the evidence you provide.This works very well in road racing and has basicaly stopped all this carry on dead in it's tracks. Simple innit ;D
Great post ,sound too simple.I don't know if our scene is ready for something like that though, with protapers, PDvalves, shocks with external damp adjusters , alum swingarms that were never an aftermarket item etc etc there would be alot of bikes left at home.
-
Yawn yawn its been fascinating reading guys, but like Suzuki footpegs its becoming a snore fest....
-
Are you reading the rules motomaniac, or just on a high horse?
Externally adjustable shocks, PD valves, fat bars etc are all currently legal.
Fair enough it you don't want them to be legal, but that would be changing the rules, which is a whole 'nother ball game.
I agree with you on the swing arms, FWIW.
One of the reasons these discussion go nowhere, is because far too many people get confused by what the rules are, with what they think the rules should be.
-
All good reading, but would it be too hard just to go with the rules? Sure they aren't always the clearest but all this talk about TM250s being non-competitive or whatever is a load of crap. So what? That's the rules. If you aren't happy, propose an amendment. What we have is what we have and we can all live within it. If you HAVE to race a 78 YZ125 in Evo, then accept it'll get done like a dinner and go have fun. If you want to win, buy an 81.
Talking (or more accuratley whinging) about ProTaper bars, decent shocks and so on is a red herring and getting old. They are LEGAL. End of story.
But if you have a bike that is even a teensy bit illegal BY THE RULES, then you just might have to cop it on the chin one day.
-
Yawn yawn its been fascinating reading guys, but like Suzuki footpegs its becoming a snore fest....
If your bored go and find some more pants to sniff ::)
-
Had both alloy swing arm (optional suzuki black) and a full floater Hand made copy off a photo In 1977 ( spoilt brat 14 y/o)
-
Are you reading the rules motomaniac, or just on a high horse?
Externally adjustable shocks, PD valves, fat bars etc are all currently legal.
Fair enough it you don't want them to be legal, but that would be changing the rules, which is a whole 'nother ball game.
I agree with you on the swing arms, FWIW.
One of the reasons these discussion go nowhere, is because far too many people get confused by what the rules are, with what they think the rules should be[/i
I am reading the GCR's isnt everyone?
-
Are you reading the rules motomaniac, or just on a high horse?
Externally adjustable shocks, PD valves, fat bars etc are all currently legal.
Fair enough it you don't want them to be legal, but that would be changing the rules, which is a whole 'nother ball game.
I agree with you on the swing arms, FWIW.
One of the reasons these discussion go nowhere, is because far too many people get confused by what the rules are, with what they think the rules should be.
Sorry Mate but I just don't get it.You are saying that rubber mounted handle bars (78rm) are illegal.[Im not going to ask about stiffer fork spring and a bit more rebound damp.]
Yet items that surfaced in the 90's arenot. i READ THE gcr's over and over in the last few weeks.Where the fug is it?
I appreciate your without malice postings btw .
Also I dont care really but I just sold alot of 125d and e stuff and I couldnt see the dif in the cylinders without measuring the ports.
Cheers
-
I am trying , Bill , but she is not letting me . :D And the mailorder ones from USA are to pricey . ;D
what are you talking about the exchange rate is good ATM.
-
Thats pot calling kettle black William :o
-
Wasp, are you saying that pre-worn ;( not pre-78); underwear is available on-line?
Just out of interest sake of course. And I am sure 43 already knows the answer.
A PM will do!
-
By the wayOur GCR's for pre 78 say
"for this reason ,we do not classify motorcycles strictly by the year they were produced, but by some similar characteristics that were possessed by the majority of these first- generation long-travel motorcycles,such as suspension travel"
Yes AJAY a C is better than a B but so is a 75 CR better than a 74.
Are you suggesting that a B model fits the class but a C model is a second generation long travel bike as per the GCR's?
Are you suggesting that a C model because it has floating brake and 10mm more travel be classified in with 12" travel Husqvarna's,Maico's,YZG's and H's.
Motomaniac, if you are willing to quote the rules, then quote them as they are written, not a 'piece' of them as you perceive.
The pre78 rules are written and explain the concept of "Pre78" very well. What they say/discribe at the start is that in the Pre78 era the first of the "second generation" long travel suspension where available, and they would out-class the early "first generation" bikes of the era.
If you happen to read the rules again how about stating the first sentence....
18.7.6 Pre 78 Classes. Eligibility
"The Pre 78 classes are intended to represent the "first generation" long-travel bikes that were commercially avialable in the 1975-1977 periods. The time frame is provided only as a guideline, as some 1977 models are of the "second generation long-travel bikes that would clearly outclassthe earlier models if allowed to run together. For this reason, we do not...... (and so on, as you have stated)
18.7.6.1
Acceptable for the Pre-78 class are machines built up to and including the 1977 model. The only exception to this GCR is where the model remains unaltered after this date.
This is first and foremost, a class based on an era, 1975 through to and including 1977.
-
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
-
Jeez I've been out having a nice seafood lunch and a couple of nice NZ Sauvignon Blancs and arrive home to find you blokes still arguing over this shit. Move on for f*cks sake blokes! It's over, has been for five days. Second hand underwear online? ;D Trust a Swiss to move the discussion to new heights/lows (depending on your particular kinks!) ;D Much more interesting than defending the indefensible I reckon. ;)
-
If your bored go and find some more pants to sniff ::)
[/quote]
I guess we all have to have a hobby Bill. ;D
I think one way of clearing things up instead of a log book, is you make reference table, for example any
RM250s with the serial number 123-456 are eligible,
scrutineer checks frame number, gives the bike the once over for post 78 parts and thats it. Scrutineers decision is final on the day, no protests and no shagging about.
-
People often wonder why major sponsors of sporting events stop sponsoring events, and divert their funding into other sports
-
Firko ditto,I just enjoyed a wonderful rugby match along with a mighty NZ Sav Blank (quoting Cath & Kim) and not a pair of edible undies in sight.
Please put applicable snoring sounds here>>>.>>>>>>>.>>>>
Good night Johnboy!
-
If your bored go and find some more pants to sniff ::)
I guess we all have to have a hobby Bill. ;D
I think one way of clearing things up instead of a log book, is you make reference table, for example any
RM250s with the serial number 123-456 are eligible,
scrutineer checks frame number, gives the bike the once over for post 78 parts and thats it. Scrutineers decision is final on the day, no protests and no shagging about.
[/quote]
I agree - sounds too easy.I posted a page or so back :-Didn't anyone check the frame and Engine numbers??derrrrr
-
It seems everyone has had a say, so I feel it’s only fair for me to have my turn.
My bike ( #36 ) was other one that was protested.
The bike has been presented at the titles in the same setup for as long as I can remember and no one has complained, protested or mentioned anything about wrong parts on the bike in that time. Don’t know if that’s good or not?
The eligibility scrutineer has twice looked over the bike ( 2003 & 2008 Tassie ) and the only thing mentioned, was if someone protests, was I happy to pull the forks down and show there was only 9” of travel. Nothing else. If he felt it wasn’t worth mentioning I should change parts, why would I think otherwise?
As for the protest.
Everyone has the right to protest but it’s the way you do it that can upset people. If you spot something wrong, questionable, not right, talk to the rider. You don’t want to confront them, get the official to do it. That’s what they’re there for. The rider should be told what’s wrong & given options. They need to change what’s wrong, they can ride up a class or they can ride and be eliminated from the points, but you don’t let it go for three days of racing & when everything’s over, you get hit with a protest. People don’t like bombshells being dropped on them. That’s how you end up with pages & pages being written on forums.
I will change the parts before the next titles & it will be just as quick.
Hope we all get to race together again next year & that this is the end of this thread.
-
Hi mate, thanks for posting as it is good to here from the people affected and credit to you for keeping it civil. My heart goes out to you for coming all that way with a bike you thought had been accepted as kosher.
After the people who discussed the bikes that were deemed by them as not legal and as i was there listening in, there are a few things that i would like to comment on that you have posted. Yes you have had the same set up for years and one of the things is that at the Coffs Nats people were contemplating protesting your bike then. Just shows how hard it is to be the 'bad guy' so to speak. Fast forward a couple of years and the pre78 class has gotten worse with more and more bikes with incorrect parts as well as 78 model bikes also. The protester thought it was time to take a stand for what he thought was the right thing to do. Your bike was part of his decision.
Second, as you well know, scrutineering is separate to eligibility . The racing would not have gotten underway if bikes were also checked for eligibility issues as well. Also then to be told to go into another class would cause turmoil with the lap scorers. The reality is onus is on you to have your bike right. Its the only way it can work.
The right way to protest? I think that the way you say to do it is a good way. Go and talk to the person that you feel has the wrong part/s on their bike. That would be a start. I actually came down to your tent on sunday morning due to what i heard on saturday night to ask you what your thoughts were on the subject. You were not there.If we had spoken, what could you have done to alter the bike? Would you have stopped racing? That is another issue in itself.
Last comment is that the system in place says that you protest at the end of the event. Thats why the bikes are impounded for a set time after the last race. Maybe that rule should be reviewed as well, i certainly don't have any suggestions.
I have put more than my two cents worth in on the subject as i was close to all of this when it went down and also it was a friend that did the protest. I backed him when maicostu came over and 'unloaded' (stu's word) on him and i still back him now.You dont win friends doing this but it will be for the benefit of the sport in the long run and that is why he did it.
Good luck to you mate, next year its in your back yard. Hope its your year.
Cheers, Brad
-
Good on you for backing your mate Brad, but if I were in your shoes, I would have told my mate to grow up, wake up to himself and try very hard to impress on him that what he was about to do could not be undone. If he proceeded I would have then called him a woose, or sook, or knob, or something similar. We would still be mates though, and I would continue to remind him of the incident and his right to protest, no matter how piss poor, forever. I would probably go as far as presenting him with his own 2nd place trophy at the start of each & every race meeting we went to from then on. I would also have a very loud ticking clock in earshot, just so he knew exactly how long 15 seconds was. That's just what I would have done if I were in your postion at the nationals. I guess thats why we're all different and the world is the way it is.
K
-
That his protest was successful, proves that he was right to protest.
If anyone doesn't like that, then I can only suggest that they do one or more of the following:
1. Avoid the Nationals in the future;
2. Get the rules changed so that the technical infringments are no longer infringements;
3. Deal with it and move on, as the riders in question seem to be doing.
I've detected quite a bit of tongue-in-cheek in bigk's last post, but it still annoys the hell out of me that the protester is being given a hard time for being right.
I haven't ridden an RM-B and an RM-C back to back, but I can confidantly state that I'd be more than 5 seconds/Conondale lap quicker on my 1978 YZ125 than I am on my 1977 model. Even if the protest had been simply about results, that 15 seconds is suddenly looking a lot smaller....
But that's assuming that the reason for the protest was about 'trophy hunting' which I don't believe to be the case at all. It was about reminding people about the line in the sand that they agreed not to cross when they entered the pre-78 class.
If there had been a '78 YZ entered as a '77 model, you can bet your boots that I'd have made sure that it wasn't included in the pre-78 results - as despite what a few of our Victorian friends may have convinced themselves into thinking, I know that more people would support me than vilify me for it.
And while I'm ranting, why the hell does anyone go to the Nationals if not to hunt trophies?! We can all do local club days or rec rides for a helluva lot less time and money, and yet plenty of people chose to 'put up with' the extra time, money, travel, etc to do the Nationals. The least that can be expected is a level playing field, which is what happened in the end.
Apologies for a lack of humour... something to do with the mother-in-law. :-\
-
I am reluctantly posting, but you were speaking to me personally Michael. I just wish you could see the bigger picture here. After all the pm's, emails and phone calls to me, chewing the fat due to this very subject, there are a lot of bikes that just aren't right legality wise that people haven't been happy with for quite a while.FFS my Maico isn't to the letter of the law! So first of all, it has put people on notice to get their bike up to scratch.
Secondly. For the life of me, i cant understand why is it okay to bolt a 78 front end into a pre 78 bike. It defies logic and the rules as they stand. At THE premier event.
How about this scenario. Tell me when i have gone too far, from sook to "hey mate , thats not legal".
An rm125 '77 model for pre 78 ( i have become an over night expert on this ::) ).
Put on a 78 front end. (thats ok, right?)
78 swing arm. (not much gain from that)
78 wheel with floating hub ( can you measure a gain from this?)
78 motor. Only 25% more fins and maybe a small porting change. That may be all the difference there is.
Frame? Well you can mount the original b tank straight to a c frame . Cant be too much difference either ( small steering angle change i here)
That doesn't leave much but as you can buy an aftermarket tank for other bikes, maybe throw a c tank on as it fits.
SO. Where is your line? You can see mine.
High horse? Yeah i can see that . Wrong? Well it looks like its the way you are personally looking at it.
I think i can nail the way we both feel as this.
I look at this subject in a matter of fact kind of way, and my post is written that way . But you are looking at this in an emotional way by taking the piss out of the guy. That seems to be the difference between our perspectives.
So where IS your line? It is not a rhetorical ( wow, a Nathan word!) question.
Another question. Would you protest a guy obviously cheating by putting a B tank on a C bike? Or just bitch about him to your mates every time it turns up?
I would like some feedback on my questions please.
Cheers, Brad.
-
Well then lets have a clear cut definite cut off; ALL bikes and ALL equipment only pre-whatever date are in and ALL bikes and ALL equipment post-whatever date are out. That way my 77 VB Monty can run as a pre 78 (as it should if King Makers hadn't bodged the rules in the name of competition ::)).
Here are the two Suzuki's in question.
(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/OzVMX/1977_RM125_yellow_rside_520.jpg)(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/OzVMX/1978_RM125-2_right_Aus_500.jpg)
Here are their spec's
http://www.suzukicycles.org/RM-RMX-series/index.html?RM125_1975-1980.shtml~isoraami
If these are the two bikes then in my opinion a 'blind eye' should have been turn by the competitors or sorted out between themselves before the race. There's less of a competitive advantage between these two bikes then between either of these and other pre 78 125's. If Monties and Husky's are expected to 'suck it up' in the name of fairness and the benefit of the sport, then if think others should be a little more sporting rather than pedantic.
If it not pedantism but rather pure Historical Representation than we better change the rules.
-
Are we still banging on about this? ::)
BigK, with the greatest of respect, your expressed attitude is what leads people to blur the boundaries of class eligability in the first instance and frankly we don't need people doing that stuff. How about the simple idea of sticking to the rules as they are written? ;)
And it logically follows that if someone rides a bike that doesn't fall within the rules, then they can fall foul of being exposed for that fact.
There shouldn't be, nor is there ANY dishonour in protesting an illegal bike. Simple as that. The rider who has the illegal bike is the one who should feel bad about letting down his fellow VMX competitors.
And MX250, there was no doubt back in the day that an RM125C was a much better MX bike than an RM125B. At the moment, the rules are clear - RM125Cs are not allowable in pre-78 classes. If the rules are changed, well so be it, but until then, that's the way it is ;)
-
Hope this issue dies soon. I'm starting to think about not going to the Qld titles because I don't want to get caught-up in this argument. At the end of the day the rules are in the book.Read them stick by them and all this wouldn't have happened. If in doubt about something ask someone who's in the knows like MQ or MA and they will put you onto the right people. Darcy #674
-
We are 'banging on' about it because it is controversial. Is now and always will be - 'racing' bikes from different periods, years etc is fundamentally unfair. Having rules to even things out will always be a compromise and disadvantage some, advantage others.
'Bang on' about it now and get it out in the open, people might then understand not just the rule by why things are as they are. Then they might be a little more philosophical. As I said, I think the protester in the above case should have been more philosophical - he should have 'sucked it up'. There was no major advantage, intended or otherwise, in the above example. This has been acknowledged several times by various people.
I'm disadvantaged by the current situation. My VB would probably double in value as The 'class racer to have' because of it's suspension travel. Ditto BigK and his Husky. We are expected to 'suck it up' for the sake of the rules, why can't others.
The rules are right, the referee was right, the system was right - we riders have to sort ourselves out and live with the 'compromise' - either change the rules or ride, race, 'suck it up', drink piss and enjoy ;) ;D.
-
For what I see in NSW, there are a lot of non compliant bikes running around in Heaven, admittedly it gets bikes on the track, but half of them are in my opinion are not compiling to the rules. Guys are getting away with too much as a result of this attitude and it has now flowed over into the Nats arena
-
Are we still banging on about this? ::)
What would you like us to be 'banging' on about? Someone's birthday?, Chilli cook-offs? How much a copy of VMX magazine sold for (I bet you like that one)?
What's being discussed here is about racing. Now I know that you dont race. But for the people that do this is an extremely emotional subjuct and they want to put their point of veiw across. I would have thought that a public forum would be the place to do that and I'm amazed that yourself (a person of the press) would try to discourage such an activity. ???
It's the age old answer to what's being shown on the telivision. If you dont like what's on, change channell or switch off...... ;)
BigK, with the greatest of respect,
I've watched "Yes Minister". I know exactly what that term means..... :D
-
Are we still banging on about this? ::)
What would you like us to be 'banging' on about? Someone's birthday?, Chilli cook-offs? How much a copy of VMX magazine sold for (I bet you like that one)?
What's being discussed here is about racing. Now I know that you dont race. But for the people that do this is an extremely emotional subjuct and they want to put their point of veiw across. I would have thought that a public forum would be the place to do that and I'm amazed that yourself (a person of the press) would try to discourage such an activity. ???
It's the age old answer to what's being shown on the telivision. If you dont like what's on, change channell or switch off...... ;)
BigK, with the greatest of respect,
I've watched "Yes Minister". I know exactly what that term means..... :D
Ah, 414 your usual completely relevant response... ??? No sign of your bias here... ::) Why not just deal with the subject at hand huh? ;)
And by the way, just because I don't race doesn't mean that I don't have just as strong passions as anyone for this sport.
And no, you're wrong about my attitude to BigK, I DO respect his opinions, just not this particular one.
Back to the subject at hand:
I don't have any problem with people discussing eligibility of certain bikes and if something positive is to come of the discussion, then people can represent their views to the Vintage motocross commission and maybe get the rulebook altered in the future to resolve this issue (if indeed it needs altering in the opinon of the majority of competitiors).
The point I am making however is that deriding a person who protests as performing some kind of "low act" is just wrong. That's why the protest system exists, to ensure fair racing under the rules.
Sure there are bikes that appear the be disadvantaged by the rules (MX250s VB is being offered as an example) but that is the case for quite a few bikes that in thier day had design innovations, like longer suspension travel, which were ahead of their competitors. Why didn't they dominate their classes back in the day then? Probably because the extra suspension they had was pretty crap due to the shocks they used. The problem that this creates however when you allow more modern shocks to be installed on these bikes is that a distortion of history occurs - suddenly you are able to make a bike that wasn't competitive much more so in today's racing. So this, as I understand it, is why some general rules about suspension travel were adopted, to just level the pre-78 playing field a little more.
So at the end of the day, there will always be contention about eligibility of particular bikes and there's no problem at all discussing that until the cows come home. But keep the personal attacks out of the equation, because disrespect for our fellow competitors (and indeed forum members) is not good for anyone.
-
...there are a lot of non compliant bikes running around... not compiling to the rules. Guys are getting away with too much as a result of this attitude and it has now flowed over into the Nats arena
I agree with SPJ on this one - and Nats seem to be the only time the eligibility rules are (strictly) enforced.
But are Riders trying to get away with too much or are they simply 'no big deal' improvements?
Remember the old adage 'it's all about fun and not about sheep Stations'?
I reckon the Nats is pretty much the exception to that. And that's certainly when the rules must come into play.
There's a few good forum ideas on this subject (hidden somewhere in the three or four threads on this exact same topic ::)) and maybe that's what the rules need.
Again; if you think the rules are too anal or pedantic please submit some proposed changes/updates.
But it has to be sent to the rule makers, not just simmering away on this forum.
Unfortunately the motives for why the mods were done and why the protester took the plunge has again resulted in mud slinging on a personal basis.
And that's no way for a 'community' to survive.
-
Frame numbers and parts books are NOT considered as eligability complience in road racing. Again it is very simple, components such as frame, swing arm, forks,triple clamps, wheels, brakes, crankcases, cylinder and cylinder head are all major components.These must be from the era or EXACT copies of the original or items that can be proved to have raced within the period.End of story. All other components are deemed minor and be replaced with what ever the entrant deems fit and complies with the rules for the era.
This way there is no checking , cross referencing etc etc on the day, your bike is deemed compliant a long time BEFORE the big race.
So you want to use rubber mounted bar clamps, fine you go and find evidence of rubber mounted bar clamps being used before the end of the cut off date.
Any one who follows road racing would know the kerfuffle over floating discs in P5, there was a big saga, but it boiled down to could the entrant prove there was floating discs raced prior to Dec31 1980.As it was the entrant had a big pile of pics showing 1979/80 model RGB 500's with floating discs. Now if you wish to run floating discs you either get some original RGB discs or use Manta eng copies of.
-
Not too much emotion from me here Brad other than that the system seems to have been applied in this situation, which is possibly, probably correct. However those same rules seem to have been forgotten or pushed aside as to other much more clearly illegal bikes, Glen Bells bike stands out like the proverbial dogs balls for one. Everyone knows it, but hell lets not protest that bike, Glen Bell is riding it. It looks like a case of "different rules for different schools" to me. The other main issue for me is that if you're coming 5th or 6th and by a margin of around 15 seconds, you were well and truly beaten and not by a set of rubber mounted handlebars or 9 1/4" of suspension! If you were bangin' bars with the 3 bikes in question, and there were a few seconds in it, then MAYBE exercise your right to protest. By the way I don't know the protester and he's a decent guy by all accounts, however I still feel he has made a very poor decision, probably influenced by others opinions at the time, given the particular circumstances. Nathan there ain't too much toungue in cheek in my post, it's pretty much how I feel, and anyone who knows me, knows in fact I would have done my best to talk him out of protesting and continue along the lines of my post if the protest continued. Even the best of my mates would not live it down. It's just my opinion, and it really doesn't matter for nought in the big picture.
Cheers,
K
-
This is all a result of what I believe are an over regulation for a sport which is meant to be accessible to all comers where all a cheque book should determine is the type of bike, it's level of presentation and whether the rider camps or stays five star. FFS lets get back to basics and stop banging on.
I for one only want to finish a Sunday with a smile on my face! Who gives a shit about a shelf of plastic when you are sitting back in Sunny Days Nursing Home? I just want good memories of hassle free times doing whatever that brings enjoyment and feel most guys are the same.
What is to stop MA having a master list of all bikes sold for any given age category eg pre '78 (with supporting photos if need be) which clearly state the MANUFACTURERS ORIGINAL SALES DATA. If a bike came out with 200mm travel then that's what you run, likewise if it had 235mm travel. There can also be a twist in the tale - If in the pre '78 era or whatever, an aftermarket or front end swap, fitting of a kit etc could be achieved to improve a bike then so long as support can be provided for the modification as being PERIOD SPECIFIC then bring it on. That's what the guys ran when the bikes were new and that is how the evolution of motocross bikes has taken place.
I do acknowledge that having this simple data would piss off guys who want to swap suspension etc but there has to be a cut off with the onus of the rider to PROVE things are halal (that's just for the muslims reading this thread, lol).
MA (ACU) NSW should bring back square race plates while they are at it, lol !
Dave Mac :D
-
Sun Praries got it in a nutshell. Because there's a less strict attitude towards period compliance at club day level, racers have got away with rule infringements to the point that they more often than not believe their bikes to be correct. In recent times I've seen reed valves in pre 70, wrong era hubs and suspension components in pre 75 and even complete bikes in the wrong class. While the onus initially falls on the competitor to present a legal bike for the class, who's there to advise him on any discrepancies with his bike (whether deliberate of accidental)? I haven't seen any serious attempts at eligibility scrutineering at a club day in years. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, it's just that I haven't seen it at HEAVEN or Penrith club meetings in NSW. I'm guessing that VIPER and QVMX and WAVMX also have the same relaxed attitude to compliance scrutineering on their club days.
For our sport to move forward and to adopt new classes and age cutoffs we need to address the eligibility problems at ground level, the humble club day. Unfortunately for that to happen another problem raises its ugly head. Who's going to do it? Because of the complexity of the eligibility criteria and the huge variety of machinery involved, it's cruel to expect anybody to possess enough knowledge to be able to make accurate eligibility decisions on every bike he inspects.
I'm reasonably knowledgable on old bikes and I believe David Tanner to be one of the more astute officials in our movement and as I observed Dave doing his inspections at the Nats it dawned on me that even though it's assumed by some that the pair of us supposedly 'know our stuff', I was looking at bikes that I didn't have a clue were correct or not and I'm certain Dave was in the same boat.
So,how are we to solve the eligibility problem before it gets totally out of hand? The system as it is at the moment obviously has its flaws so perhaps its time for MA to form an eligibility comittee that would meet say four times per year to resolve sticky eligibility situations. For it to work we need to take the unknown away from those who make decisions. To achieve that I propose that various marque experts sub comittees also be appointed to oversee their particular brand of bike. For example (and I'm just using these guys as examples of my idea and aren't seriously proposing these folks.)
Maico: Stuart Muntz, Firko.
Yamaha: Nathan Senior (pre 75) Steve Gall (post 75)
Honda: Magoo,
Husqvarna: Husky Pete, Brian Watson.
Montesa:Ross Nimmo, Gary O'Brien.
.......And so it goes from Alron to Zundapp. Of course some of these comittees members could multi task and be on various different marque comittees. The marque comittees would assemble as much printed matter, service manuals, engine and frame numbers, identification photographs and other hard copy information to be used as reference to create defining cutoff and eligibility standards. Eventually a dosier could be created on many of the most popular machines eligible for VMX that would become 'the bible' for eligibility scrutineering. The dosier could be placed on disc or hard drive, the eligibility scrutineer at any event would have a lap top at his disposal with all the criteria needed at a key stroke and the pressure and guesswork would be gone. Anybody with access to the lap top could be the eligibility scrutineer at any meeting, the need to find someone who" knows his shit" gone with the stroke of a keyboard.
Of course this is a huge undertaking that would require the dedication of many knowledgable and dedicated people, and therein lies problem #3. Just like any other sport or organisation, ours has a majority of participants who just want to have fun (to paraphrase Cyndi Lauper!) and don't want to get into the nuts and bolts of it all. They just want to race and that's cool and fully understandable. However, I also know that there are some truly amazing fountains of knowledge out there. Anyone who's ever talked Huskys with Husky Pete or pre 65 scramblers with Alan Jones will know what I mean. This knowledge needs to be harnessed for the benefit of our sport.
If something isn't done in the near future VMX will become stagnant, tied up in endless eligibility squabbles. This posting is merely an idea to promote discussion. There may be a simpler method than what I've proposed so if you've got an idea to streamline the growing eligibility dilemna please share it with us...................
-
Wrong AJ. What I'm trying to say is that this is one subject that should be thrashed to death.
I agree that bikes competing in Nats should be right on the mark to avoid being protested but to me a big problem is the grey areas. I for the life of me can't understand a lot of the rules ???. Take for example the fact that you can run 38mm forks in Pre 78 (albeit under the 9" rule). Where the hell did these forks come from in 1977?
How can a bike from 1979 be running around with external clickers and hi/low speed compression damping?
I think at a State level though (Viper, Heaven etc) It'd be over-kill and I believe that most of these organisations can self regulate. I saw a good example of this on the weekend where a chap who was running a more than obvious elligle mod was asked if he could change it back and it was done. No fireworks and everyone kept on racing. :)
But the rules have to be looked at and changed. And if it meant running log books then I'm happy to do that.
(Big breath in) Firkos nailed it there I'd say. The people that know the bikes should be the ones saying what is legal and what isn't. MA can't possibly be expected to knock out some new rules in twelve months that is going to cover everything. The rules should be comprehensive, readable and fall on the side of common sense. We have to write our own rules and be able to interpret them. It'll take a lot of time and work..... :-\
-
Plenty of times at Heaven events, there are 'quiet words' spoken to the owners of bikes that don't meet the rules.
If an owner is genuinely ignorant that his/her bike isn't legal, then that's only because nobody else at the meeting knows either (ie: Trainspotting stuff).
You're right that plenty of things are ultimately ignored at Heaven events, but that's up to the host club and the other riders to decide. We shouldn't be forced into doing something that would be bad for the club in the name of some sort of 'predictive policing' of bikes that might later be taken to a National event.
I'd be surprised if any of the other club took a different appraoch.
I also don't buy it as an excuse/reason for people taking ineligible bikes to the Nationals - particularly seeing as the Heaven regulars seemed to be the ones to keep themselves free of controvosy at/after Conondale... :D
-
All Things agreeing with the Guru. F me what’s the world coming to ;D
-
All Things agreeing with the Guru. F me what’s the world coming to ;D
It's a beautiful thing! ;)
-
I think at a State level though (Viper, Heaven etc) It'd be over-kill and I believe that most of these organisations can self regulate. I saw a good example of this on the weekend where a chap who was running a more than obvious elligle mod was asked if he could change it back and it was done. No fireworks and everyone kept on racing.
You're right that plenty of things are ultimately ignored at Heaven events, but that's up to the host club and the other riders to decide
Perhaps one way of ensuring that everyone at least starts the season on a kosher bike, why not take a leaf out of the drag racers book and hold a non race pre season "tech inspection day" where eligibility experts could inspect every bike and advise the owners on any changes needed to be made and to advise them on various aspects of their involvements in the sport ranging from licencing right through to riding gear inspections as well as bike eligibility. The day could double as a BBQ type social event and give newbies an opportunity to meet their fellow racers and learn how 'the system' operates in a more relaxed enviroment.
With that event we are given a good opportunity to see each others bikes and know who and what we will be competing against. I'm sure that if there are issues with the legalities on our bikes we'd rather nut it out in a relaxed pre season social atmosphere before the racing season kicks off than be surprised with a protest at our first big race of the year......once again, merely a discussion thought.
It's a beautiful thing!
Shucks, I feel all warm and fuzzy 8)
-
All I can say is make your bike fit the rules, dont try and make the rules fit your bike. The protest was upheld correctly and it took someone to protest the bikes to make everyone from this point on double check their machine - its a positive. What has happened for years is a quiet chat about some dodgy part that some have honestly not noticed others plainly took the advice as an open book to flaunt the rules.
There could have been 10 more protests, for example CR250m with welded reed, Husky's x 2 with illegal frames and swingarms, pre 65 bikes with wrong stuff, M model Suzukis etc etc etc. Not withstanding the bikes with mufflers fitted at scruitineering that fell of at race time.
I did ask a rider to move up to pre78 with his 1975 Bike - this was just too blantant to let go but in the main most bikes were pretty close to the mark and to even draw into question the protest based on the facts - not the emotion is plainly incorrect.
Can I also say that the standard of machine was very high in most cases at the Nationals but at least 10% :( on my machinery line were rejected for safety reasons. I have to say that I have been to 15 nationals as scruitineer and the basic stuff I found was crazy - loose steering heads, un plugged handle bars, half the bolts missing on sprokets, stuff held on with wire - sheez. To me these issues were and are by far more relevant than the 78 issues. Perhaps someone should start a thread on how to prepare your bike for the nationals!!!
211
[/quote
SHOULD THIS BE COMMENTED ON BY A COMMISIONER WHEN ANY BODY INVOLVED IN A PROTEST/APPEALL HAS 21 DAYS
-
Firko - I have been sitting back watching all these related threads with much interest. Taking this into account and the much discussion that occured before the Nats - I can see one big problem IMHO. It appears that it does not matter which track you go down ie setting year ie pre 78 and allowing nothing from after, setting clear guidelines or making it all very clear and accurate - there are several groups of people out there - those that want the rules and are prepared to defend them to the letter, those that "break" them through ignorance because they are so convoluted and those that think because parts are not available or it doesn't make a difference putting a xxxx part on a yyyy bike that you will not please everybody and somebody (the loudest minority) will bitch. I mean we have people supporting a guy who protested 100% by the rules and other people shit bagging him, we have people going off that weren't even at the meeting about what should or should not of happened.
I try and be a "half glass full" person but stepping back, seeing what is going on and I can't for the life of me see a win win situation for all here either though I have an opinion on what I would like to see happen.
Sorry to be negative but I would stake my left one that regardless of what "system" is adopted the very next thread would be somebody whinging about it.
And I am prepared to help/support the majority which ever way it goes because I don't ride for "sheepstations" but want to have a good time - so don't take this as a cant be bothered ;D
cheers
Rossco
-
Settle down folks. This is like the soccer game in no-mans land during WW1
Sorry to be negative but I would stake my left one that regardless of what "system" is adopted the very next thread would be somebody whinging about it.
You can please all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but the present system doesn't seem to be pleasing anybody any of the time. ;)
-
I have been on committees for speedway (cars) and for waterskiing, and have seen this happen before. In both cases a protest occurred and the clubs decided to sort out the rules of the sports. What occurred in both cases is that the rules were totally overhauled and it stuffed the sports. Everyone had to make changes.
I THINK IF THE RULES ARE TO BE AMENDED IT SHOULD OCCUR 6 MONTHS DOWN THE TRACK AFTER EVERYONE SETTLES DOWN. YOU MIGHT FIND THEN, THERE IS NOT THE SAME INTEREST. AND ALSO ONLY ONE OR 2 ITEMS IN THE RULE BOOK TO BE CHANGED AT A TIME. No matter what is resolved, cheating is still going to occur.
-
:)
-
6 months kane - it takes about 2 years for a rule change to go thru ma and if we where going do 2 items only knock that out to 6 years as 211 kawasaki can tell you the pain you have to go thru. good points anyway.
-
As a parting comment on this subject, I reckon there'd be few if any problems if we built bikes to suit the rulebook and not try and change the rulebook to suit our bikes. The rules may not be perfect but the problems that emerged from the Nats could have been avoided if the rulebook had been followed to a tee. This is not in any way a personal criticism of any of the racers involved but if they'd built their bikes to conform to what MoMs allows for their particular class the end result would have been very different.
The rulebook certainly isn't perfect and perhaps some of the protest points are trivial, however building a bike to suit our own perspective on what the class rules should be and expect the officials and other racers in our class to agree with us is a touch wishful and perhaps a bit arrogant. Whether we agree with them or not,when we sign our entry form for the Nats we agree to follow the rulings set down in MoMs and if we are caught out contradicting those rules we must be prepared to be protested and the case dealt with by officials using the same manual to make their decision as we should have when we built and entered our bike. Ignorance of the rules isn't an excuse.
If we feel the rules need modification or updating this forum is a good vehicle for discussing it with interested others but in the end we need to deal with any rule changes through our club using the official system that's in place. It's a lengthy process but the system is in place to utilise a series of checks and balances to make sure the commission gets it right. I understand the angst involved here as I've been protested a couple of times and wasn't happy with the situation but after it all died down I eventually understood the reasoning behind those protests and changed the questionable parts on my bikes. I think time will have the same effect on those protested at Conondale and eventually they'll understand why they were placed in such a situation.