I apologise in advance for the long, dry post.
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 am reading the GCR's isnt everyone? end
and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what rule book it is that everyone else was reading or where in the GCR's its gives exception to " all components will be of the period (that) the machine was manufacrued" & " modifications using later equipment are not allowed"
http://www.ma.org.au/AM/Template.cfm?Section=General_competition_rules&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentFileID=41129I've been quite vocal in my criticism of the wording and the formatting of the rules in the past - and plenty of people have taken personal offense to my criticism... Plenty of other people fail to recognise the difference between criticism of the words/formatting and a desire to actually change the rules.
One of the main failings of the current wording of the rules, is that they do not include either of these statements:
"No modifications are allowed, except for the following freedoms..." or; "All modifications are allowed, but with the following restrictions...".
Instead, what we have is a set of rules that specifically allow some things, and specifically prohibit some other things - this means that you have no 'fall-back' position on any issues/components that are not specifically discussed in the rules.
The part you've quoted appears to be an attempt to do this, but if you interpret it 100% literally, then everyone's bikes are illegal, unless they're running tyres, chains, grips etc that were manufacturered in the era.
That being the case,
everything that's not specifically addressed by the rules is open to interpretation. Of course, "interpretation" will only really matter when you're involved in a protest (either as a protester or a protestee) and have to argue your case to the Stewards...
Personally, for every modification I make to any of my bikes, I imagine myself in a situation where I'm being protested, and I have to prove to a cynical steward that I'm not a cheat - this is a part of the reason why my bikes are more standard than most. I'm not saying that anyone with a more modified bike is cheating, just that there are plenty of things that I
might get away with, but wouldn't bet the house on it.
Agh... I'm rambling... What it comes down to, is that the vague bits of rules can be interpreted a lot of different ways. Much like in civil courts, the difference between sinking and swimming will come down to a mix of the following factors:
a) The reasonableness of your interpretation of the rules.
b) Precedent.
c) Whether it makes a difference.
d) This is Chewbacca*.
So, getting to the point:
1. Rear shocks.
a) Reasonable Interpretation: Rear shocks are only discussed in GCR 18.5.0.8. The
implication of 18.5.0.8 is clearly the replacement shock absorbers are allowed (if the rule had intended to limit people to original fitment shocks, then this entire rule would never have existed. Instead it would simply say "Rear shock absorbers must remain as originally fitted to the machine in question".
The fact that the rules specify some restrictions on replacement shock absorbers, means that any replacement shock absorber meeting those restrictions must be legal.
b) Precedent: Many, many bikes have passed scrutiny and raced without protest at VMX meetings, including National title meetings. Adjuster knobs on twin shock bikes are clearly visible, so there's no question that it was simply 'missed' by every scrutineer and every other rider...
c) Whether it makes a difference: Ultimately, the external dampening adjustment is a tool to simplify tuning and offers no direct performance benefit compared to a properly tuned non-adjustable shock.
2. Fat bars.
a) Reasonable Interpretation: Handlebars are a 'consumable' item on a MX bike - they are not a "major component" as (un)defined in 18.6.0.2. They are not mentioned at all in the Classic MX rules, so are clearly not prohibited in CMX. Bars without cross-braces and bars with an OD of greater than 7/8" were both available before 1975.
b) Precedent: Many, many bikes have passed scrutiny and raced without protest at VMX meetings, including the National titles. Handlebars are clearly visible, so there's no question that it was simply 'missed' by every scrutineer and every other rider...
c) Whether it makes a difference/other stuff: These handlebars clearly provide a small improvement in performance and rider comfort, above and beyond true "era correct" parts, but CMX allows performance modifications.
3. PD / Emulator valves.
a) Reasonable Interpretation: Forks are only discussed in GCR 18.5.0.8, although they probably fall into the category of being a "major component" in 18.6.0.2. Neither of these rules prohibit internal modifications to forks. PD Valves/Emulators do not over-step any of the restrictions in 18.5.0.8.
b) Precedent: Many bike have been raced with these components fitted, without consequence. While they are virtually impossible for a scrutineer to identify at a race meeting, there is published information that states that particular bikes have raced at National Championship level with them fitted, again without consequence.
c) Whether it makes a difference/other stuff: These components clearly offer a performance advantage, however CMX allows performance modifications.
It is also extremely difficult to identify these components without time consuming disassembly at events, making "illegal PD Valves" impossible to enforce at scrutiny.
Shim-stack style suspension valves have been around since pre-75 (at least) so they could have been made in the pre-75 era (ie: The technology existed then, even if nbody was using it).
[/bush lawyer]
I can see the counter-arguments for all of the points (particularly the PD Valve stuff), but are they strong enough to sustain a protest successfully?
Personally, I hate the look of fat bars on old bikes (IMHO, they're tolerable on Evo and newer bikes, but are a crime against good taste on the older stuff), and if iy was up to me, they'd be illegal in VMX - but that's different to saying that they are currently illegal.
*This is a SouthPark reference. Short version is that sometimes you can pull out apparently irrelevant info and use it to support your case (or damage someone else's argument). I'm sure it can be found on You Tube or similar if you care.
