BSA project

[firko]

Jim......they have been knocking points B40s back, that's the thing.....there was a big hooo haw at the Conondale Nats over just this point if I remember correctly. Things are a bit tougher in motocross than the almost nonexistent eligibility at dirt track. But I agree with you that it's crazy to knock them back......my Triumph as well.

[bazza]

Yamaico i spent 5mins on google to find info on 50 x 1964 b40 being sent to Australain army,but no photos.Army records?,some one who now owns one of them?,some must have survived,army meusem?Will research more if i get time

[yamaico]

Yamaico i spent 5mins on google to find info on 50 x 1964 b40 being sent to Australain army,but no photos.Army records?,some one who now owns one of them?,some must have survived,army meusem?Will research more if i get time

Thanks Mike,
I believe that they were C15's fitted with B40 engines (engine numbers B40.5436D to B40.5455D). I have sent an email to a B40 register in England in the hope that they can tell me what ignition was fitted to that engine number series.
Pete.

[bazza]

Pete that will be interesting,Mike

[TM BILL]

I dont want to be a smart arse  but the general consensus seems to be that the rule is outdated and not what the masses want . Instead of trying to find proof to comply with whats written why not get whats written modified to suit what the people want 

Im a simple person and i cannot understand why it seems so difficult to get a rule changed if thats what the licence holders want .

I was on the MX commision for MNZ for some years ,i know smaller operation etc etc but we looked after all MX & Supercross things for the kids through to the top level , not just one facet of the sport . When the paying licence holders felt a rule was not in their best interest or outdated they approached the commission (us )either directly or through their club . We then looked at what they wanted changed and asked others in the sport what they felt .If it was the general consensus that it should be changed we took it to the annual MNZ conference and got it rubber stamped . The next rule book would show the new rule and everybody was happy

As commissioners we were representatives of the licence holders and were appointed due to our experience in the sport .

I don't know how your system works but i would imagine it must be fairly similar         

[huskibul]

          Spot-on bill ! thats how this thing should unfold its such a fine line/ grey area it should tip toward "whats best for the  sport"

[firko]

Yamaico i spent 5mins on google to find info on 50 x 1964 b40 being sent to Australain army,but no photos.Army records?,some one who now owns one of them?,some must have survived,army meusem?Will research more if i get time

I think the Aussie Army had more than 50 WB40's over the years Mikey but it's worth checking to see whether that particular shipment were points or distributor models. If the records are correct and the side points engine wasn't released until 1965, those 50 Army WB40's are probably distributor models and would be no help to our argument.

However, like everyone on here agrees, it's a rule that really doesn't help in attracting more racers to the older classes. The B40 is the pre 65 equivalent of the DT1 in pre 70 or the TM250 in pre 75......a simple, (comparatively) low budget, entry level bike that can be hotted up to achieve some serious performance, be kept reasonably stock or any stage in between. There has been a serious resurgence in interest in pre 65 and pre 60 over the last year so it would be a smart objective to make submissions calling for a softening of the engine flow on regs for both pre 65 and pre 60. The softening of frame requirements seem to have helped in the pre 65's come back so let's bring back the "all except B44 & B50" paragraph ASAP.

[TM BILL]

          Spot-on bill ! thats how this thing should unfold its such a fine line/ grey area it should tip toward "whats best for the  sport"

Surely that's what were all here for , the betterment of the sport .

I know in the past a commissioner has come on here and announced that this forum will not dictate what rules are adjusted and fair enough to.

But this forum does seem to represent a fair number of people who have an active interest in the sport . You are never going to please everyone , but if its what the majority wants give it to them , its their sport at the end of the day . 

[firko]

  Surely that's what were all here for , the betterment of the sport .

I know in the past a commissioner has come on here and announced that this forum will not dictate what rules are adjusted and fair enough to.

But this forum does seem to represent a fair number of people who have an active interest in the sport . You are never going to please everyone , but if its what the majority wants give it to them , its their sport at the end of the day . 

I agree Bill, I'm hesitant to argue eligibility stuff on this forum as 9 times out of 10 these discussions turn into slanging matches that make us all look like a team of wankers to the outside world. However, this is a slightly different situation where the engine that was once legal, by the simple removal of one small half sentence from MoMs is now ineligible for the class. It's time we lobbied for its reinsertion.

[huskibul]

 Not just  reinserted but "defined" regarding the side points !I was told sidepoints were out when that "all but b44 and b50" clause was in the book   

[KTM47]

I dont want to be a smart arse  but the general consensus seems to be that the rule is outdated and not what the masses want . Instead of trying to find proof to comply with whats written why not get whats written modified to suit what the people want 

Im a simple person and i cannot understand why it seems so difficult to get a rule changed if thats what the licence holders want .

I was on the MX commision for MNZ for some years ,i know smaller operation etc etc but we looked after all MX & Supercross things for the kids through to the top level , not just one facet of the sport . When the paying licence holders felt a rule was not in their best interest or outdated they approached the commission (us )either directly or through their club . We then looked at what they wanted changed and asked others in the sport what they felt .If it was the general consensus that it should be changed we took it to the annual MNZ conference and got it rubber stamped . The next rule book would show the new rule and everybody was happy

As commissioners we were representatives of the licence holders and were appointed due to our experience in the sport .

I don't know how your system works but i would imagine it must be fairly similar         

I also have a reasonable understanding of the MA Commission system. I know how the MX/SX Commission works. The system is sometimes influenced by other parties, not just the riders, clubs and SCBs.

Although I have raced Classic MX on and off for probably ten years I haven't really got involved in the politics (until now). I have looked at the rules and there are a lot of things that can be better. There also seems to be a lot of people with their own agendas and stubborn views. Really what probably needs to change is the wording that says "The only exception to this GCR is where the model remains unaltered after this date" I believe if there is only a slight change that there needs to be a way to approve the machine.

Also I believe everything can't be put in the rule book. Maybe there needs to be an appendix stating what is acceptable. This appendix can be up-dated on the run. There needs to be a process that permits the Classic MX & DT Commission to clarify things and then put it in writing, so it isn't left up to individual scrutineers to decide, from meeting to meeting.

Also is everyone working from the current MOMS?

One major problem, like track standards, is that rules are open to interpretation.