Optional Alloy Arm for pre'78 RM's

[bigk]

Been through it a million times Doc, and no matter how rational your questions are or what proof you have, the rule sticklers will not listen or have a bar of it. Is it any wonder the numbers are down at this years nationals? A "rule racer" could more than likely find something to protest about even if your bike is legal. Protests should NOT be heard or considered unless the interested parties are banging bars, for all the races they compete in, and only up to fourth place. If you come fifth or further back you have no business protesting as happened last year over a top triple clamp. The officials should instantly dismiss any whimsical rule/eligibility BS before it gets off the ground and the rules should be the same for everyone, and not turn a blind eye to someone's bike because of their profile, as once again happened last year. Common sense SHOULD prevail, but unfortunately it's the one thing that's slowly disappearing in the world.
Cheers,
K

[firko]

Doc...Lozzas on the right path. Take your concerns to MA . The people who develop and maintain the rules to our sport aren't walking encyclopedias full of detailed knowledge on all makes and models, they sometimes get it wrong or more precisely, are underinformed on many items. They rely on educated input from the shop floor to make correct policy decisions.
The reason the swingarm issue hasn't been dealt with is that nobody has officially submitted the correction in the correct manner. It's up to guys like Doc who are knowledgable on a particular make or issue to correct discrepancies through those correct channels. While I agree with Docs points and truly admire his bull terrier like tenacity on the issue, all of the whingeing and complaining on this forum isn't going to further the cause one centimetre. If you feel that the RM B/C swingarm issue is such a travesty of justice, present your case in an ordered and articulated manner, complete with published documented proof to your club or to someone who can present it for you for submission to the comission.

[DR]

Thanks all. Advise heeded in regards to having something submittable to present to MA for clarification.

Just for the record I'd like to state categorically this topic has/had nothing to do with any persons or illegality protests at any events past. Had the optional arm not existed in the specified era then there would simply be no contest

[huskibul]

  Stick with it doc,i'am with you as would countless others,if "they"are not up to speed with certain things they need to be informed by people(or organizations)the informations out there,look at the knowledge in this forum alone ,and they need to be held to keep it real

[monaro308]

Doc,from the start of your post i think we all understood that it wasn't against anyone,just what you were saying and needs to be said....
THESE ALLOY ARMS WERE AVAILABLE FOR PRE-78 RM's and needs to be ammended.

Good onya for being persistant with it

[Nathan S]

This is a silly question as i do not race and never have (apart from karting for 13 yrs)why was the cut-offs selected at pre 78,etc etc and not decades and half decades ie pre70,75,80,85?

Pre-78 exists because the 75~77 models otherwise lived in no-man's land, between the short travel pre-75 bikes and the long travel Evo bikes. The rule book says something about the "first generation of long travel bikes", which is pretty good summation of the intent (although stuff like the YZ-Ds and RM-Bs are clearly second generation of 'long travel' bikes, but that's another argument for another time).

I like the way Evo relates to a technology level, rather than year cut-off, but when all of the other classes are year cut-offs it makes things messy.
 

[Nathan S]

And to get back on topic:
What Firko said.