OzVMX Forum
Clubroom => General Discussion => Topic started by: 090 on August 16, 2009, 08:21:19 pm
-
I will apologise in advance to those that think 'oh no, he is still going on with it'. All i can say to you other than an apology is that if you were accused of cheating by your bike not being legal, would you not want to clear your name? Clearly, nothing positive can really come from this but i feel strongly about this and the way the accuser went about it all. I certainly dont want to lose any friends i have made on here because of this, nor did i want to be on the wrong side of maicostu who has made me feel this way.
So here is your first post Maicostu that you pulled as you realised you were wrong.
Re: The pre-78 solo protest.
« Reply #59 on: August 12, 2009, 05:05:44 PM »
Remove messageRemove
Quote from: maicostu on August 11, 2009, 10:53:20 PM
Hey Brad , Did you have restrictors in your aw?HuhHuhHuhHuhHuh
Dont think so?HuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuh?
I checked
Get off your high horse
Maico stu
The second one you pulled asked if i would hand my trophy back and another said that i cant measure my bike properly.I cant quote exactly and they certainly were not flattering. I can only show this first quote as i quoted it in my post.
So to summarize Stu you accused with no facts to back it up, pulled your posts when you realised your foot in mouth problem and the worst part of all that has made me go to these lengths , is no sign of an apology at all .
Once again sorry again for putting a downer to a great forum about a great sport which has become a major part of my life.
Here are the photos i took of my bike doing the measurements so there is no doubt my bike is legal.
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-5/1259377/maico%20legality%20002.JPG)
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-5/1259377/maico%20legality%20006.JPG)
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-5/1259377/maico%20legality%20007.JPG)
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-5/1259377/maico%20legality%20010.JPG)
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-5/1259377/maico%20legality%20009.JPG)
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-5/1259377/maico%20legality%20004.JPG)
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-5/1259377/maico%20legality%20008.JPG)
As you can see , i have gone to alot of trouble pulling my bike apart to do these measurements. I will NEVER knowingly cheat nor cop someone telling the world i am one.
The FACTS!
Rear suspension . Fully extended is 465mm, on the bump stop is 285mm. Difference is 180mm, which equates to a fraction over 8 inches.
Front suspension. Fully extended is 235 mm, fully compressed leaves 28mm of distance between the seal wiper and underside of the triples as per photos. that equates to 8.15 inches.
My bike shits it in.
At least i will sleep well tonight.
VMX rules.
-
So the sales brochures exagerated the suspension travel, thats odd, they usually quote horsepower & weight quite accurately ::)
I was dissapointed to see this bike out front though & thought long & hard about protesting it myself, after lengthy discussions with friends & officials they eventually convinced me that I can't actually protest you for not running a GMC pipe :o ;D
Seriously though, you need to work on your maths, 180mm is a bit over 7 1/16"
-
consider your name and bike cleared, even though you did not need to.
-
Hl Brad , you are still mearsuring it wrong
Would you like me to explain to you how to measure it
It will be more than 9" in travel
Again rule 18.7.7.1
a) regardless of original specification,no motorcycle may have more than 229mm(9") of suspension travel at the front and rear wheels
I did not make these rules
I do not want to have a slagging match over the web
But i am right
maico stu
-
OK MaicoStu, you keep telling us how this works but no details. I'm curious now! If Brad measures the difference between full compression and full extension and claims that figure is the suspension travel, I'd agree with him. It's how I've always figured it out. So, what's he doing wrong?
By the way, I might be a dill, but I'd have thought the rule should require the travel to be wheel travel, not suspension travel. Suspension travel would surely be how far the suspension unit travels, wouldn't it?
*Anyone?* Isn't wheel travel the distance the axle travels? So, measuring from a point on the frame directly above the axle to the axle extended and compressed, and finding the difference, must give the wheel travel. Mustn't it? I guess it'd be better to measure the actual distance of the arc of the rear wheel, but that's a bit too silly really, surely?
-
Would you like me to explain to you how to measure it
Please do. I asked you to in the other thread.
I do not want to have a slagging match over the web
Neither do i but as far as im concerned you started it. While you are here, if you are right, why pull your posts?
Prove i am wrong and i will appologise and hand my trophy to Bill who came second. No prob's. I am not a cheat and if my bike is wrong its through ignorance only ( which is no excuse).
-
Brad I think you have gone above & beyond and Kane your attitude to the whole situation is exactly what our movement should be all about.
Well done to you both.
-
Graeme, I agree with measuring the vertical distance of wheel travel rather than along the arc of the swingarm.
If you had a 6' swingarm (since we are talking inches) the length of the arc of movement would be much the same as the travel but work it out at the other extreme with a 4.5" swingarm. Then the vertical travel is still 9" but the the arc of movement becomes about 14". Some how I don't think the 14" of movement will absorb any more than the same 9" bump the 6' long swingarm will.
Brad I agree with what you have done but I'm a bit sad that you had to go to this extreme.
When the "other Brent" came to race the Nationals we had modified the suspension on his YZ250D with spacers front and rear to make sure he only had 9". He didn't want the same thing happening if he had of won.
Stu, even if Brad doesn't want to know, I'm keen to find out how you are measuring the travel, front and rear.
Cheers
Brent
-
this has a good description of measuring wheel travel. Read section 12.5
http://www.ahrma.org/rulebook/sec12.htm
so does this now proove the rule book/maico sales brochure is wrong and you dont have to put spacers in the 77 forks to reducs the travel since in standard trim they are under 9 inch anyway?
-
Hl Brad , you are still mearsuring it wrong
Would you like me to explain to you how to measure it
It will be more than 9" in travel
Again rule 18.7.7.1
a) regardless of original specification,no motorcycle may have more than 229mm(9") of suspension travel at the front and rear wheels
I did not make these rules
I do not want to have a slagging match over the web
But i am right
maico stu
He's measuring it right.
If you want to be pedantic, the front vertical travel will be LESS than what Brad measured.
If you want to be REALLY pedantic, you might have half of a wobbly argument's annoying little brother if you wanted to point out that if the rear axle was right to the back of the adjustment it would gain a (miniscule) mount of travel. In reality, the rear wheel would have fallen out long before Brad's bike had more than 9" of travel.
And you'd have to make the decision on how the bike was actually raced, not what it could be.
-
I am currently talking with Stu via pm to get this sorted. If measurements are different then i have stated , i will report them here.
-
TECH INSPECTION OF STATED SUSPENSION TRAVEL LIMITS.
a) FRONT SUSPENSION: The field check for the front wheel travel, where applicable is as follows:
1) Compression springs are to be removed with the bike on a stand and both wheels off the Ground. 2) A cable tie is to fitted around one staunchion. 3) The bike is then to be lowered of the stand, so that the front suspension becomes fully compressed by the weight of the bike. 4) The cable tie records the maximum extent of full compression position, and cable tie is to be left there in that position. 5) The bike is then raised back on to the stand so that the front wheel is completely of the ground and drops to its lower limit. 6) A measurement will then be taken from the cable tie down to the top of the wiper. That measurement is the exact amount of travel, unless the suspension has been fitted with rebound bump springs! 7) In that case the
front wheel is to be pulled down by an assistant to compress the rebound springs. At this instant the distance will be measured from the cable tie to the top of the wiper. This will then be recorded as the full amount of front suspension travel. In the later case both compression and rebound have been factored into calculation to produce the full sum of total travel.
b) REAR SUSPENSION: The field check for rear wheel travel, where applicable, is as follows:
1) Both shocks are removed from the bike, then one bare (without spring) damper unit is reinstalled. 2) The machine is supported in such a fashion that the rear suspension is at maximum extension, and a measurement is taken from the center of the rear axle to a point marked directly above the axle on the rear fender or subframe. 3) With both wheels on the ground, the rear suspension is fully compressed by the examiner with the rider aboard to compress any rubber bumpers; a measurement is again taken from the center of the rear axle to the same marked point above. 4) The measurement obtained in step 3 subtracted from the measurement in
step 2 is the wheel travel.An alternative method of determining wheel travel may be used by tech inspectors using a pre-programmed computer. The program converts three dimensions—distance from swingarm pivot to rear axle, to lower shock mount and top shock mount—to show the amount of travel of the shock shaft plus 50 percent of the rubber bumper. Due to the use of non-standard or different types rubber bumpers, this
check may be overridden by the tech inspector’s discretion. Manual measurement of shock movement is the overriding factor in determining whether a shock is legal.
-
So the sales brochures exagerated the suspension travel, thats odd, they usually quote horsepower & weight quite accurately ::)
I was dissapointed to see this bike out front though & thought long & hard about protesting it myself, after lengthy discussions with friends & officials they eventually convinced me that I can't actually protest you for not running a GMC pipe :o ;D
Seriously though, you need to work on your maths, 180mm is a bit over 7 1/16"
Geoff I think that they put a sup reg in the latest GCR's that says anyone racing at Broadford must first buy a GMC pipe - too even out the competition of course . :D
-
Brad the events over , no one protested you.Move on. BFYI the GCR'S specifically mention Maicos,Huskys etc for a reason.That reason being that the nice guys who wrote the GCR's knew that the bikes that they mentioned all come off the show room floor with more than 9" travel front or rear , or front and rear.
That is why the GCR's state for these bikes to be eligable in the class they "must have travel restricters"
Also its not about measuring arcs or forks vertically .The travel is measured in a straight line between the start and finish points ie along the fork stauchion as you correctly did - result 235mm or 91/4".
The rear should be the same .Maico engineers in their wisdom made the long travel Maico usually with equall travel front and rear - its a small factor and part of the legendary handling and overall balance.
Your Maico having non original shocks might have a different length or stroke but for sure your forks are over the 9" limit for the class as you measured.
If you are still interested borrow a 1977 MXA or DirtBike were they have all the specs including suspension travel.
I dont think you need to clear your name but as Stu suggested maybe just stepdown from the high horse.
BTW 9" is Dumb but thems the rules. ::)
-
Brent, as far as being on a high horse, i was backing the person that protested as at the end of the day he did the right thing for the sport in general. Being in the middle of it all and knowing what went on and reasons why, i had alot to contribute on the subject. So to can Stu. You on the other hand were not there.I think its a bit rich to tell me to move on. Part of this post was to 'clear my name' but also to make sure my bike conforms to the class. So until i am certain my bike conforms or i have a plan to fix any issues, i cant move on. Through a couple of pm's from Stu, he has relayed his way of measuring the forks . Which is to remove the fork from the bike, remove the cap and spring, and measure fully extended and fully compressed. I have done this four times to make sure i have extended the forks properly and again pushed it down as hard as possible to get an accurate measurement.
The measurements are, 478mm extended and 260mm compressed. The difference is 218mm which is still just over 8.5 ". So there was a difference between on the bike and off the bike.
The travel is measured in a straight line between the start and finish points ie along the fork stauchion as you correctly did - result 235mm or 91/4"
That measurement was from seal wiper to bottom of triple clamp. With the forks compressed they bottomed 28mm before the bottom of the triple clamp, so it has to be subtracted from the 235mm.
One thing that stu has said is that the air caps are for a 78 as the 77 has the old style with no air. So that means that at least the staunchings are also 78. So that will have to be changed.I would like air caps still so hopefully there is a period mod i can buy.
-
Brad-try "Jatsco" on Us e-bay-if he does not have the air caps , he can make them.
Funny thing is, I am a volunteer AHRMA tech inspector here in the US. First, it is amazing the number of times I get asked "why" is a rule in place. Sadly, I can only deal with the how and not the why. As for the US VMX clubs-AHRMA has the reputation of "scutinizing" bikes more so than ant other organization.
That said, in our "post vintage"program-we seldom have travel checks. Of course, the only class where travel is limited is "Historic"-equal to your pre-78 class.
While we require 9" travel max, I can't recall a travel check or a protest.
BTW I'll have ot check on the 77 Husky specs, but have never seen one raced in Historic, the reality of the AW Maicos and MC5 KTMs is that the springs would sag killing usable travel anyway. We all weigh a bit more these days-and fit better springs.
In the pre-75 classes, we more frequently install spacers( which are either nylon or delrin or?) that must be purchased-and even caught a 1975 #136 360 Bultaco engine in a 1973 chassis once. We frequently get bashed in AHRMA for checking travel on pre-75 bikes-and for no non period flatslide carbys on 75 up bikes.
-
Brad, not sure what the rules are there, but here for pre-78 you can run any 38mm era fork provided the travel is 9"-so many AWs are actually running the 79 38mm fork w/ spacers.
Ok here is the dreaded yank editorial: When we have "emulators" and other hidden performance devices, which IMo actually help suspension action-it seems inane that we require 9" of travel in pre-78( Historic here in US). I agree to scrutinize the pre-75 bikes,as there is so little wheel travel -that any advantage IMO equates to a performance adavantage. In pre-78-I really think it makes no real world difference, yet I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS A RULE.
I think Brad has gone out of his way-and I would do the same. I have given back trophies-moved myslef up a class etc....once I used an older bike 75 KTM-laid the shocks down( stiffer springs etc)-put on some 210 mm Cerianis-and kicked their 77 model asses with my old, heavy KTM. Really, if we are hinset I think most any of us would want to set the record straight-and if we are in violation-to correct it.
What has not been said is how this may affect Brad's perspective about continuing to race pre-78....or even race old bikes at all.Here in the US, pre-78 bikes are not in great numbers-I personally thank anyone and everyone who brings one out through my tech area.
-
What has not been said is how this may affect Brad's perspective about continuing to race pre-78
mmm, crystal ball time...I see Brad dominating pre'78 in all classes. Want to protest? then you best find some 100% factual and not fictional discrepancies or you'll lose the protest and your reputation in one ;)
-
I HATE LONG POSTS! SO MAYBE I SHOULD WRITE A BOOK ON
*** “HOW TO LOOSE FRIENDS AND CREATE ENEMIES” ***
IF IT WAS NOT PROTESTED ON THE DAY? YOU WIN SIMPLE! TIME TO MOVE ON! BUT POSSIBLY THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR "MA"TO PROGRESS!
There is nothing to be gained from harbouring "I’ll will" in our sport! It will only serve to eat a hole in the soul of VMX Australia. Imagine that energy spent instead addressing our inadequate and incomplete progression of GCR’S since the post POST PRE 1975 era! (GCR’S pre78, evo, and pre85 need to be finally finished and clarified). Submit your recommendations and proposals to MA please, instead of wasting every body’s time and bitching this forum!
Brads 77AW400 was “as purchased” and not protested on the day, and therefore probably should have not been mentioned! But you entered the oreana first Brad! Although I have never met “Maico Stu”, I believe he is an MA official of some sort! And although he may lack in computer expression, he certainly shows he has a clear comprehension of the present GC RULE’S and I think for one he should be respected for his forum restraint!
“Nathan S” gave an initial post that is still PERFECT and indeed needed no reply, in the first place from any body! Let alone the usual "Guru" poop stirrers! (But we all knew that wouldn’t last!) Be honest, didn’t we?
You know Brad, I believe you just bought a great pre 78 bike, that being an 77AW400 for the obvious pre78 VMX race class. Just to enjoy as is, a well-sorted package, with no intention to flaunting any rules. We all know you haven't been here in VMX that long! You probably didn't even realize that they have 9.5" front and back travel in standard trim, but I can assure you that the brochure is correct. I doubt that many would know that most 1977 model bikes actually exceed the pre 78, 9"(229mm) front and back suspension 9" limit rule. Indeed, even the front suspension of a 1977 RM125B in standard trim is 9.1". And by the rules should be limited to 9" with no allowable margin of error to be considered into calculation.
IT IS TIME FOR OUR POST 74 GCR'S TO BE FINALLY “COMPLETED” AND CLEARED UP. AS IS THE SAME CASE FOR EVO GCR'S AND PRE 85 GCR'S.
MAYBE IT IS A GOOD THING ALL THE CONFUSSION FINALLY COMES TO A HEAD AT LAST.
A DIRECTION NEEDS TO BE CHOSEN!
AND OBVIOUSLY NOT BY ME!
IF IT WERE UP TO ME? THIS IS HOW I FEEL!
I have always thought it would be far more simple to solve eligibility by simply accepting a VMX bike, by when a bike was or wasn't in production of that era! Rather than make it so difficult and complicated for people to overcome ignorance and the suffer cost of complying buy transforming a once politically correct machine to a so-called “even playing field”. Especially when most of us are on a budget! Arguably money that may be better spent on safety! Or actually covering the cost of attendance and competing! Which would add to the number of competitors and actually facilitate the survival of our sport! EXAMPLE: a Maico long travel 74.5 was factory produced and eligible in the latter period of 1974! So why is it unacceptable in that production state in pre 1975 races now? If you want to have a crack at a low HP, poor tranny ratio, gutless but good handling MC250 Maico? Get yourself a Spaniard Sanga or a Sarky sceamer and smoke the Maico! The same descision we all made in the so called "DAY". So why should it be any diferent now?
We could follow US rules, which isn't too shabby I supose.?
OR
My Feeling’s ( which are built from feeling’s of my mine and my freinds)
OR
“LOZZA’S” proposal of a logbook? THERE IS A VERY SOUND REASON WHY THAT IS THE ROAD RACING “NORM”! SOUND REASONING. AND IT IS MAKING THE CONSTRUCTION OF MY “PERIOD 4” PRE 1972 MAICO ROAD RACER SO EASY, BECAUSE IT IS DESIGNED TO TEACH ME A COMPREHENSION OF THE RULES! IF I THEN CHOOSE TO VARY MY BIKE SPECS AS STAMPED AND APPROVED IN MY LOG BOOK OUTSIDE OF PERIOD PRECEDENTS???? WELL I WILL BE PENALISED AND DISQUALIFIED! AND RIGHTFULLY SO!
-
That's one of the best postings I've read in a long, long time. Well said Mick. :)
-
protest counter protest, cheats and liars, extreme bike measuring, Makes you glad to be a NZder. ;)
-
or the seriously non competitive type :P ;D
-
What has not been said is how this may affect Brad's perspective about continuing to race pre-78
mmm, crystal ball time...I see Brad dominating pre'78 in all classes. Want to protest? then you best find some 100% factual and not fictional discrepancies or you'll lose the protest and your reputation in one ;)
100% Mate - go's for the pre 78 125 class as well.I think that we finally determined the bike#36 didnt have more travel than a B model with its C model forks , just rubber handle barclamps and longer aircaps.
Thats what all these postings have been about.
-
I can here someone on their way who's gunna shout "That's enough of all this! I thought I told you all we weren't talking about this stuff anymore!"
And someone else is gunna go......
ZZZZZZZZZzZzzzzzz. (He always cracks me up when he does that :D)
-
ross this is probably the first time there will actually be a result to this topic with out being told to shut up by the tribal elders (like it or not) and im sorry to say this but i know more about that bike than any body but havent said so as yet ,to see if they can work it out like civillized men
-
I can here someone on their way who's gunna shout "That's enough of all this! I thought I told you all we weren't talking about this stuff anymore!"
And someone else is gunna go......
ZZZZZZZZZzZzzzzzz. (He always cracks me up when he does that :D)
ZZZZZZZ Ross look at all the bored people viewing this thread! Don't these folks work?
Good luck Fella's .I gotta go and earn a quid.
-
Brad-try "Jatsco" on Us e-bay-if he does not have the air caps , he can make them
Monaro , John makes great stuff and is a great guy .
Not having a go but my next question is if its not legal to use an OEM aircap from the same manufacturer but from another model .Whats the go with getting new parts made in 09?
How are we going to differentiate or police that? In the end how can you determine if an air cap is original OEM , aftermarket from the period or remanufactured copy of either?
IS it worth it ?. Why does Brad or anyone have to go to such lengths to comply to the rules?
Why have something made up in 09 on the otherside of the world when you already have the same dimensioned part that you are copying in your hand ? Albeit from 1978 when the 78 part is already know to be an OEM part that was copied from a 77 aftermarket part?
Just questions Mate.
-
Hey Brad no trouble with the friendship here. But what I did notice in the photo's of measuring the rear travel is. Your getting a bit thin in the hair department ;D. Darcy #674
P.s Took the Hodaka out for it's first race on the week-end. All went well with it :)
-
I want to know how Maicostu came to his conclusion that Brads AW was illegal at the Nationals. It'd elighten us all. For the record I looked at the bike with a coupole of tribal elders ;) who had heard a rumor that a protest was in the wind and going by the dirt line on the forks the travel looked to be within 9''. I can't say that we looked at the rear end but the front was OK by the 3 of us looking at it. The Husky from WA was far more interesting for us anyway.
-
i owned that bike first and when i bought it paul stacker pointed out from the pics of the bike that it had the wrong forks in it ,when i said this to the owner ,he said that he had a original set somewhere and if i wait he would get them bottoms bead blasted and put them together and then send the bike to me .
it origianaly had 79 forks
ok i said and the bike turned up
un beknown to me he didnt change the later mode fork legs only the sliders
so 78/79 fork leg have air cap and 77 have the old style grub screw spring and ball
so im led to believe that later fork legs have longer travel
-
a 77 in standard trim is to much travell front and back for pre 78 by a bees dick but it s over
factory specs
(http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo263/ozmaico/IMGP2921.jpg)
(http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo263/ozmaico/IMGP2923.jpg)
-
77
(http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo263/ozmaico/IMGP2908.jpg)
-
78/79
(http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo263/ozmaico/IMGP2924.jpg)
-
ps correct me if im wrong
-
Paul. I too looked at the book i bought off you which is what you have put up. I have definitely got 78 staunchings ( chrome bit) as it has air caps which are for a 78. As far as length goes, he must have modified the internals (damper rods) as it only has 8.5 " of travel, using the method suggested by stu. There is extra travel in the forks that you have to pull apart to get. just measuring the forks in the bike with the front wheel off the ground is not enough. That is why there is a difference between my initial extended measurement. I am over confident that the suspension is within the limits and the only issue until told otherwise is the air caps which are off a later model. I will rectify asap. Can you give me the original owners phone number so i can contact him via email?
-
Hey Elvis,
I believe you mate!
-
Ahuh :-*
-
dont know weather ive got it brad but i know who was there when the were put together leave it with me
-
If you're Elvis
Does that make William Doe The Colonel or is he Lisa Marie?
-
Hl Brad , you are still mearsuring it wrong
Would you like me to explain to you how to measure it
It will be more than 9" in travel
Again rule 18.7.7.1
a) regardless of original specification,no motorcycle may have more than 229mm(9") of suspension travel at the front and rear wheels
I did not make these rules
I do not want to have a slagging match over the web
But i am right
maico stu
Hey Maico Stu
Any chance you can explain the correct way to measure the travel for the purpose of compliance,
#8
-
If you're Elvis
Does that make William Doe The Colonel or is he Lisa Marie?
Stalker. He keeps turning up at my home!
(Thanks Paul ).
-
im told standard dampning rod / the measure ment are in black and white on the factory specs i posted
im not saying any more :(
-
Bills a Rock and Roll singer now, he made his debut sunday night at the nats with Gary S on the gitar in front of Norm Watts and John Boag. He has many hidden talents the pom, got a standing ovation and did an encore, might even have his own band for CD7 at Conondale! Hes probably looking for back up singers and musos, you can contact him via the forum, DJ I here is going to do the crocodile rock!Let the talent quest begin. Firko can do a bit of JJ Cale, Brad of course will be doing Elvis numbers, Vandy can do some Dobbie Bros, I can see it (here it) now , well all be crying in our glasses, Nathan doing Abba (sorry mate but you have got a Volvo pickie next to your name), the beat goes on,........ lardy, lardy, lar. Cheers John ;D :D ;D :D 8)
-
Vandy can do some Dobbie Bros, I can see it (here it) now , well all be crying in our glasses
John, John, John, John, John,
it'll be either Zeppelin, Sabbath or B.B. King from me thanks... ;)
-
Bills a Rock and Roll singer now, he made his debut sunday night at the nats with Gary S on the gitar in front of Norm Watts and John Boag. He has many hidden talents the pom, got a standing ovation and did an encore, might even have his own band for CD7 at Conondale!
I'd sure like to see that! ;D
-
Gentlemen,
For my money I couldn't care less if someone did or didn't comply TO THE LETTER with the MA rules ços even if I added another 12"to my bike it wouldn't help me one bit.
At the 'pointy' end things may be different however and I guess there can be some angst when someone may be suspected of throwing the rule book out the window but from what Brad and others has said it seems nothing earth shattering has gone on here.
This thread has however prompted me to ask one important question which Mr Tanner or other MA experts may be able to clarify.
Why, and irrespective of any brand, does MA fix the suspension at mandatory limits? If a bike WAS MANUFACTURED AND SOLD with suspension of a particular length why in hells name should the travel be limited by the fitting of spacers/restrictors? Surely if a bike could be taken from a crate back in '77 for example and have shall we say 235mm in stated factory literature it was OK to race back in the day, or did MA tell owners to restrict the travel (they didn't) ? The suspension travel rule should simply state that bikes should NOT EXCEED the original specs of any given model - easy!
Someone from the MA hierarchy care to enlighten the great unwashed?
Dave Mac :D
-
exactly ;)
-
Just to confuse myself I posted on another thread relating to this one and expanded on things a bit to take in PERIOD modifications eg Simons and Fox. Still a pretty simple formula I reckon but FFS lets lighten up - most of us are weekend hacks. If the full on guys are desperate for plastic then maybe MA can introduce grading for VMX just to make it even more difficult for organisers...............
Dave Mac :D
-
I must admit I belong to the school of thought that says it's just for fun so why get all tied up over it? But then I start to think of the fact that it does have to have some rules to prevent people doing the wrong thing. If we have a club series or a National event, there is a percentage of people relatively serious about winning. For example if I decided that next year I am going to attend every HEAVEN meet and win Pre 78 125, then the smart way would be to buy me a 1977 RM125B and go set it up to go fast and handle good. Without rules it's a simple matter for me to add every modern device known to man to improve the power (maybe a later cylinder and head to help that cause), a decent swingarm (maybe a nice alloy one of different dimensions to make the best of the new long travel shocks I bought), and perhaps some N model forks to round out the package. pretty soon I am not racing a 1977 RM125B. Is that really fair for anyone else who might have wanted to win that class (imagining for a moment that I can ride at least as well as Noel and Nathan).
No it isn't.
But having a rule that says I can't modify my bike to have more travel than it came standard with doesn't work in pre 78. If I wanted to race Pre 78 Open, I can get me a Maico with 9" of travel, or even a YZ400D with about the same. But my TT500C in the back shed is a bit light on in that department with just 7.5" at the front, and about 6.5" down the back. Now, a decent aftermarket swingarm and some good shocks and a set of YZ forks and I am away with 9". Or I would have been without that pesky suspension limit rule.
So, it's just not simple, even when you try to make it so. I don't know the answers, beyond a comprehensive coverage of what's OK and what isn't.
I like Firko's suggestion on the other thread of a committee to rule on eligibility. Perhaps this segment of the sport develops its own compendium of eligibility criteria. It can be amended/added to as necessary following meetings by the committee. Over time, the ruless become more and more suited to what actually happens. And grey areas become fewer. And people can see exactly what is eligible and what isn't. In other words, the rules aren't a set and forget formula. The basic criteria are set out, then the lists of accepted mods, bikes, and so on are described in detail. A big job, but it'd help immensely.
By the way, I think there should be no suspension limits for Pre 78, or at least a sensible one. What was the normal maximum in those days, maybe 11"? So, let's just set to 12" and be done with it. If you want to make your stock framed TT500C have 12" of travel, I don't think you'll have to worry too much about whether it even works, you'll be too busy fighting the geometry. And if you are serious about winning, then get a nice Maico or Husky or whatever. I'm not going to lose any sleep over whether or not my 75 RM is competitive and I'll chuckle pretty loudly if I actually managed to beat a 10" travel Pre 78 125!!
-
Why, and irrespective of any brand, does MA fix the suspension at mandatory limits? If a bike WAS MANUFACTURED AND SOLD with suspension of a particular length why in hells name should the travel be limited by the fitting of spacers/restrictors? Surely if a bike could be taken from a crate back in '77 for example and have shall we say 235mm in stated factory literature it was OK to race back in the day, or did MA tell owners to restrict the travel (they didn't) ? The suspension travel rule should simply state that bikes should NOT EXCEED the original specs of any given model - easy!
Dave I can offer up a bit of history as to how the pre '75 7" and 4" came about.
In the late 70's/early 80's The Brits started pre 65 motocross racing and they used suspension limits based on the average for the era which came at 7" front and 4" rear. A few years later Dick Mann was formulating a usable set of rules for his proposed Dick Mann Vintage Rally events (the birth mother of AHRMA racing) and he used the already in place British rules including the suspension limits and those of the California Vintage Racing Group (CVRG) who had previously been running low key pre '75 events including the legendary "CZ World Championships" in Southern California. The big mistake in Dicks master plan was to assume that all pre 75 bikes had around 7" and 4" of travel. He had been mistaken in his belief that the LTR Maico was a 75 model so as a stopgap measure they insisted that all bikes must conform to the suspension limits and that Maicos and any other bikes with more suspension (KTM/Penton, AJS Stormer, Montesa, CCM and more) must be fitted with limiters. This was initially intended as a stopgap measure until something better was thought of but....as these things often go, 25 years later the limiter rule is still in place in the USA and Australia. The Poms in forewarned wisdom created their cutoff as pre '74.
I've change my thoughts over limiters as the sport has progressed. At first I was in favour of the limiters as I considered it'd create a more level playing field. I was worried that without the limiters we'd get fields full of 6" rear travel Maicos, destroying the 4" travel concept and dominating the class. As it turned out, as good as the Maicos are, they didn't dominate with or without restrictors. I now feel that these bikes should be allowed to race as manufactured, my reasoning being that parity will never be able to be achieved. There will always be bikes that are better than others, that's the way racing's always been. Should we limit the performance of the CR125 Honda M because it is so much better than the opposition? Of course not so why penalise Maico and the others because they were a tad more advanced than their peers? Having said that, the rule is still there and for that reason I respect it and have fitted limiters to my '74 Maicos.
I believe the 9" limit in pre 78 was introduced by the AHRMA (and later MA as the pre '78 rules are literally lifted from the AHRMA book) for thre same parity reasons. Once again I don't thing enough research went into it which left a number of bikes ineligible unless restricted. A far more reasonable limit would be 10" to allow the majority of pre 78 bikes to easily comply.
-
By the way, I think there should be no suspension limits for Pre 78, or at least a sensible one. What was the normal maximum in those days, maybe 11"? So, let's just set to 12" and be done with it. If you want to make your stock framed TT500C have 12" of travel, I don't think you'll have to worry too much about whether it even works, you'll be too busy fighting the geometry. And if you are serious about winning, then get a nice Maico or Husky or whatever. I'm not going to lose any sleep over whether or not my 75 RM is competitive and I'll chuckle pretty loudly if I actually managed to beat a 10" travel Pre 78 125!!
Graham, the actual point of pre-78 was that 1978 was the year that the first truly long travel bikes appeared, such as the Honda CR250R. Pre-78 is a class specifically for bikes in the so-called "first generation" of longer travel suspension systems, when compared to pre-75 bikes. So the limit of 9" was mandated as a pretty typical limit of what had been around up to the release of the truly long travel bikes like the CR250R.
The issue really is that the artbitrary 9" limit, if applied literally, is too limiting (pun not intended). Maybe a simple change of that dimension in the GCRs to say 245mm would be a better way to go. This would limit the bikes to the "first generation" suspension systems, but allow some previously excluded 1977 models to be used without having to shorten their suspension from stock.
Edit: It seems like we have the same idea Firko... ;D
-
From all the Pre 78 Maico's I have seen none of them have the original 77 forks.
I am sure there are some that have 77 forks.
I reason that most have been changed to 78 or 79 forks is the seals for a true 77 fork are very hard to get or don't work.
The 77 fork had a one piece fork seal, mud wiper.
I have purchased these new from a supplier in the States and they leaked.
The 76, 78 and 79 all have the traditional seperate seal and mud wiper.
When I looked Brad's bike over early in the year I noticed that it had 78 forks on it.
I have studied the 77 forks and can tell all this.
At the begining of the year Maico used up all their 76 forks and by half way through the 77 model run they introduced the 77.5 forks. These are the ones with the combined seal/wiper.
Leak Proof Fork seals state that their seals are for the 1977 1/2.
Les at Mainly Maico had never heard about this when I asked him about seals.
I told him the dimensions and he told me that I could not measure.
The dimensions on the Leak Proof Fork Seals packet are what mine measured.
When I sent him all this info Les told me "Oh is that why I have sent the standard seals to a few guys and they have told me they did not fit".
This is not in any way having a go at Les. This is just to illustrate the point that most owners don't know what they have. Paul Chippendale would know about this stuff I am sure Though I have never asked him.
Brad did not win because he has a few extra mm's of travel that he could not use, he won because he is fast just like Glen Bell.
Are Brad's post 77 forks legal. They can only be legal I understand if they were a follow over from the prievious year.
The 78 had a few modifications to the 77 so I will let the scrutineers of our sport judge. How can one tell what year a pair of forks were made. Like Glen Bell's bike. If they were fitted with WP's the WP's have the year stamped into the top of them. How hard would it be to grind that stamp off, how hard would it be then to date the forks while on the line.
Ji
(http://i726.photobucket.com/albums/ww268/Jigantor1963/P8270150.jpg)
-
This is Australia VMX we are talking about. A gift to our next generation. Why not make it easier on them and ourselves.
A truer depiction of our VMX history is from bikes that were commercially available in Aussie Shop fronts at the time, and were raced as such in that era. Do we need all of this carry on rules from other countries that basically say we have to find the resources to molest our once politically correct machines to comply with their thoughts on the matter?
It is hard enough to find time; money and recourses to just make it to the line. Who wants to disassemble and cut down precious damper tubes, weld and braze, then true between lathe centres? Fit restrictors? Well? Not this little white duck I can tell you! All in the end to change the manufacturers intended geometry of suspension design, that was standard and accepted in the era.
I thank you Firko for your following post. It is worthy of Websters! I now know how we were lumbered with the present system.
Use any machine available at club level. Who cares? Until you are holding a trophy, at the nationals. Lookout if you haven’t taken the time to molest your darling first(bike that is)!
Why, and irrespective of any brand, does MA fix the suspension at mandatory limits? If a bike WAS MANUFACTURED AND SOLD with suspension of a particular length why in hells name should the travel be limited by the fitting of spacers/restrictors? Surely if a bike could be taken from a crate back in '77 for example and have shall we say 235mm in stated factory literature it was OK to race back in the day, or did MA tell owners to restrict the travel (they didn't) ? The suspension travel rule should simply state that bikes should NOT EXCEED the original specs of any given model - easy!
Dave I can offer up a bit of history as to how the pre '75 7" and 4" came about.
In the late 70's/early 80's The Brits started pre 65 motocross racing and they used suspension limits based on the average for the era which came at 7" front and 4" rear. A few years later Dick Mann was formulating a usable set of rules for his proposed Dick Mann Vintage Rally events (the birth mother of AHRMA racing) and he used the already in place British rules including the suspension limits and those of the California Vintage Racing Group (CVRG) who had previously been running low key pre '75 events including the legendary "CZ World Championships" in Southern California. The big mistake in Dicks master plan was to assume that all pre 75 bikes had around 7" and 4" of travel. He had been mistaken in his belief that the LTR Maico was a 75 model so as a stopgap measure they insisted that all bikes must conform to the suspension limits and that Maicos and any other bikes with more suspension (KTM/Penton, AJS Stormer, Montesa, CCM and more) must be fitted with limiters. This was initially intended as a stopgap measure until something better was thought of but....as these things often go, 25 years later the limiter rule is still in place in the USA and Australia. The Poms in forewarned wisdom created their cutoff as pre '74.
I've change my thoughts over limiters as the sport has progressed. At first I was in favour of the limiters as I considered it'd create a more level playing field. I was worried that without the limiters we'd get fields full of 6" rear travel Maicos, destroying the 4" travel concept and dominating the class. As it turned out, as good as the Maicos are, they didn't dominate with or without restrictors. I now feel that these bikes should be allowed to race as manufactured, my reasoning being that parity will never be able to be achieved. There will always be bikes that are better than others, that's the way racing's always been. Should we limit the performance of the CR125 Honda M because it is so much better than the opposition? Of course not so why penalise Maico and the others because they were a tad more advanced than their peers? Having said that, the rule is still there and for that reason I respect it and have fitted limiters to my '74 Maicos.
I believe the 9" limit in pre 78 was introduced by the AHRMA (and later MA as the pre '78 rules are literally lifted from the AHRMA book) for thre same parity reasons. Once again I don't thing enough research went into it which left a number of bikes ineligible unless restricted. A far more reasonable limit would be 10" to allow the majority of pre 78 bikes to easily comply.
Rules aren't just made to be broken, they also exist as a base point for amendment ::)
-
Brad,storm in a tea cup you one because your fast.Hope to see you back in Unzud again.
-
I believe that we would actually prolong the life of the pre-75 class(es) if we didn't restrict the LTR models (Maico, MAG, Stormer, KTM etc) & ALSO allowed non-LTR models to run longer stroke shocks.
And wouldn't we all want those classes lives prolonged?
Most non-LTR pre75 bikes ran a leverage ratio around 1.25:1 (wheel travel to shock stroke), so if a 4.5"/5" stroke shock was allowed for them we'd have a reasonably level playing field of about 6" rear travel for all, which is much more agreeable to aging bodies than insisting we pummel said bodies w 4" travel. Longer stroke shocks were readily available pre-75.
I also thoroughly agree w Dave & others allowing pre78 Husky/Maicos etc to run what they were sold w back them w'out restrictors.
-
I actually believe that we would prelong the life of the pre-75 class(es) if we didn't restrict the LTR models (Maico, MAG, Stormer, KTM etc) & ALSO allowed non-LTR models to run longer stroke shocks.
And wouldn't we all want those classes lives prolonged?
Most non-LTR pre75 bikes ran a leverage ratio around 1.25:1 (wheel travel to shock stroke), so if a 4.5"/5" stroke shock was allowed for them we'd have a reasonably level playing field of about 6-6.5" rear travel for all, which is much more agreeable to aging bodies than insisting we pummel said bodies w 4" travel. Longer stroke shocks were readily available pre-75.
I also agree w allowing pre78 Husky/Maicos etc to run what they were sold w back them w'out restrictors.
Great thoughts JC ;)
I am sure that survival of our sport is as paramont to the survival of our valuble darlins(machines) and battle weary bodies.
-
As a collective group, could we get MA to look at changing this rule. I have not had anything to do with them so not sure what is possible ???????
-
I have a creeping feeling that the guys who are winning generally could do it whether they had 9" of suspension or bloody 4" .... so a few fractions here or there I don't think was ever the point of the GCRs, more that these pre 78 bikes need love to and if they have a competitive class then people will take the time to preserve then.
Its really not in the spirit of the GCRs to send people packing if their brake rod is in a slightly different position.
-
I agree completely Ajay. I know that the class is aimed at the 'first gen LTR', but it seems trying to set a suspension limit is a bit arbitrary as we know at the time things were all over the place and there was no shirtage of people building bikes with 10 or 11" of travel.
So if we must have a limit, set it to one that lets all OEM bikes of the era in, and allows some modification to those of shorter travel (eg I could add B forks and longer shocks to my 75 RM if I wanted to).
The 75-77 spread covers a wide range - 75 TM250s to 77 YZ250s, so we will never have a level playing field as such...
-
I agree completely Ajay. I know that the class is aimed at the 'first gen LTR', but it seems trying to set a suspension limit is a bit arbitrary as we know at the time things were all over the place and there was no shirtage of people building bikes with 10 or 11" of travel.
So if we must have a limit, set it to one that lets all OEM bikes of the era in, and allows some modification to those of shorter travel (eg I could add B forks and longer shocks to my 75 RM if I wanted to).
The 75-77 spread covers a wide range - 75 TM250s to 77 YZ250s, so we will never have a level playing field as such...
Whats the issue - as the GCR's are currently you can add B forks and longer shocks if you want to.
-
From all the Pre 78 Maico's I have seen none of them have the original 77 forks.
Brad did not win because he has a few extra mm's of travel that he could not use, he won because he is fast just like Glen Bell.
Are Brad's post 77 forks legal. They can only be legal I understand if they were a follow over from the prievious year.
The 78 had a few modifications to the 77 so I will let the scrutineers of our sport judge. How can one tell what year a pair of forks were made. Like Glen Bell's bike. If they were fitted with WP's the WP's have the year stamped into the top of them. How hard would it be to grind that stamp off, how hard would it be then to date the forks while on the line.
Ji
(http://i726.photobucket.com/albums/ww268/Jigantor1963/P8270150.jpg)
You are off on Belly's bike mate .The forks are Simons not WP and are legal.
78Maicos had the same basic forks as the later 77's but with more travel and air caps.79 were longer again.
77 are a quarter inch over the limit ,78 would be 1" over.
Rm 125 B and C model are also athe same basic fork.Both had aircaps but the 78 had extended ones , both have the same travel , both are 38mm etc.
Same as Brad would have won his class anyway the pre78 125 results would have also been the same.
-
How am I off on Bellys bike I said
"Like Glen Bell's bike. If they were fitted with WP's"
I did not say his bike was fitted with WP's I know his bike was fitted with Simon's.
I was just supposing.
Ji
-
"78Maicos had the same basic forks as the later 77's but with more travel and air caps."
If they have these changes does that not make them out side the Pre78 class?
Ji
-
How am I off on Bellys bike I said
"Like Glen Bell's bike. If they were fitted with WP's"
I did not say his bike was fitted with WP's I know his bike was fitted with Simon's.
I was just supposing.
Ji
Yes sorry.
-
"78Maicos had the same basic forks as the later 77's but with more travel and air caps."
If they have these changes does that not make them out side the Pre78 class?
Ji
Yes thats my opinion also. Because of the travel not because of the aircaps ,the aircaps were available for 77's aftermarket . Longer travel kits also of course by FOX for eg. but the GCR's state 38mm diam and no more than 9" .The Gcr's dont say any thing about aircaps only that the class reflects the period.So I don't see a problem there .
-
I have a creeping feeling that the guys who are winning generally could do it whether they had 9" of suspension or bloody 4" .... so a few fractions here or there I don't think was ever the point of the GCRs, more that these pre 78 bikes need love to and if they have a competitive class then people will take the time to preserve then.
Its really not in the spirit of the GCRs to send people packing if their brake rod is in a slightly different position.
I agree
-
I pose the question to all.
How much time can you save per lap at the nationals track by having longer travel forks.
The comparison is say Pre 75 to Pre 78.
The difference is 7 inches to 9 inches.
I don't know, may be 10 seconds how about 5 seconds.
Well Brad's best lap time on his Pre 75 263 bike was 2:43,
Brad's best lap time on his Pre 78 263 bike was 2:41.
So if we compare Brad using the two different class forks we find the difference per lap is only 2 seconds. Not much of an advantage. This time saving could be the engine or the gear ratios. As I said Brad won because he is fast just like Glen Bell. Glen was stuck in second gear for one of his races and still won.
Ji
-
I see your point, but be careful of comparing lap times between races, Ji - each morning, the track was wet and muddy (and slow), and by the afternoon it had dried out (and was a lot faster).
There are also variables caused by how hard the leaders were pushed - I'm sure that both Bell and Burt could have carved big chunks off their best lap times if anyone had seriously challenged for the lead.
Question: If there's only two seconds per lap between the eras, why do we bother having era racing at all? ;)
-
Nathan you are correct the track was slower in the morning but the best lap times were recorded when the track was at its best. Yes I agree that a good rider can turn up the wick when needed but Brad is not in the same class as Glen (No affence Brad).
Ji
-
Ji whats the point? Its track dependant. On a smooth track often a lower travel bike will corner better and be faster overall but if for instance the Nats are at Manjimump (and assuming that it gets rough ) in 2 years a 9" travel 78 model bike will be alot slower than a full 12" travel evo bike .
Same goes for capacity sometimes a 125 is better than a bigger bike depending on the nature of the track.
-
Of course it is track dependant I totally agree.
But as a scientific experiment lets take a look at the Conondale track for instance.
Simon Healy who was fourth in the Pre 85 263 class clocked a best time of 2.39.
I selected Simon because he would be more in Brad's class.
Simon only bettered Brads Pre 75 263 time by 4 seconds with his KX500.
The Pre 85 263 class posted the best lap times of the Nationals.
Ji
-
It really surprised me how little difference there is in lap times from pre-70 to pre-85, at least at the pointy end of the fields. It certainly makes all of those "...And there he was on an old Ag bike, riding around a bunch of guys on modern 450s!" stories a lot more believeable - a good rider on an old bike can still be remarkably quick.
What's more intersting (and possibly more significant) is looking at the mid-pack guys - based on my best lap on the pre-70 bike, I would not have been disgraced if I'd ridden it in the pre-78 field, for example. And yet it would have put me 'nowhere' in the pre-75 125s.
Erm, what were we talking about again? :D
-
I don't think the fact that how fast i was on any particular bike should be part of an eligibility issue at all. Such as 'he could have won on a pre 75 bike'.Thats just not what vmx racing is about. Nor is it a legitimate excuse for having incorrect parts on your bike. My main rant has always been bikes should ride in there era, period. I also think that a bike should represent itself as close to when it came out of the factory. As close as humanly possible. The exceptions are, period aftermarket parts and parts that are allowed as per rules that are set (e.g. handlebars, new shocks etc).
also through my rants i have found out that my forks are incorrect ( wish i had of found out in a different way! ). My forks are not good enough. I want to comply ( they have 78 staunchings and air caps).
If we don't keep our bikes as close to the way they came from the factory, they would end up all hot rods riding where ever they want to. Thats a heap of all in races.
Also when talking about era racing, there are always examples of exceptions to the rule. Such as 84 Huskys blah blah. IMO that bike (guy) has the choice of which class he can ride. From what i can gather the chance of winning lotto might be better than actually seeing one at a race day ( I pulled that out of my arse and am probably be wrong).
-
A lot depends on the nut on the handlebars.
How long is a piece of string.
-
brad do the air caps screw in or sir clips ? that another difference!
-
Screw in. Do i have to change the whole fork or just the top half?
-
i as far as i under stand it you have to put 77 fork legs and spacer or restrictor but some one here might be able to tell you more like walter
-
does that mean you dont know?
-
not yet i havent ask you know who yet im still looking after the mrs
-
Of course it is track dependant I totally agree.
But as a scientific experiment lets take a look at the Conondale track for instance.
Simon Healy who was fourth in the Pre 85 263 class clocked a best time of 2.39.
I selected Simon because he would be more in Brad's class.
Simon only bettered Brads Pre 75 263 time by 4 seconds with his KX500.
The Pre 85 263 class posted the best lap times of the Nationals.
Ji
HEY ji be nice my kx was breaking down had a slipping clutch and was not sorted i finished the bike 2 weeks before the titles so i dont think i am a good example for these lap times
-
Sorry mate I did not know.
I hope I have not upset you, I was just trying to make a point that you and Brad should have about the same ability. I was hoping that you would have finished in the top three.
My YZ490K went great by the way.
I was a bit frightened by all the stories I was told about how they buck you off so I never opened her right up. In my second race I started to get comfy and passed four other riders then the gear shift lever broke and I went backwards. On the line at the final race I selected second gear and opened the throttle slightly. It bogged but this time at least I did not wheel stand down the straight. I went on to have a few bar banging moments with some other riders which ended in me pulling a small gap and three broken front spokes.
Thanks for importing my YZ it really is a credit to Roger.
Ji
-
Hi Simon,
I only removed the YZ from the crate at 2.30pm on the Sunday before the Nationals.
We filled the gear box with oil, changed the spark plug, tightened the spokes, filled the tyres to pressure, tightened all visible nuts and bolts, cleaned the air filter, adjusted the handlebars and levers and filled the fuel tank. I kicked and kicked until I could not kick any more. I pulled the plug and no spark. So off came the seat and tank and I checked the coil, lead, wires,CDI and primary coil everything was fine just not working. Then I noticed the colour of the secondary coil wires did not match the ones going to the CDI so I colour match them and we had spark. Back on went the tank and seat and three kicks later rm rm smoke smoke rev.
She never looked back after that.
At the Nationals the gear shift lever spring retainer bar fell out and the kick starter shaft feel off. We wired the gear shift lever up. We took a walk around the track after hours and found the kick lever on the track so we asked all the YZ guys if they had a nut but alas no one did. One great guy gave me a nut that we made fit so we locktited that sucker on and she held.
The bike was great so many thanks.
Ji