This is a straight reprint from a part of the article I did on Verns Cheney for Dirt Action back in 1998. The end result after the tribunal and ensuing court cas was that the evidence from Eric Cheney was deemed to be unreliable and since no solid printed proof could be offered, the bike was declared illegal for pre 65 but legal for pre 70. With pre 68 being the accepted cut off these days, it would now be eligible and still very competitive. Verns bike was one of the first truly bling bikes to appear in our sport and it truly raised the bar on build quality and presentation. Vern and the Cheney have been invited to join the Klub Kevlar display at CD5. I sincerely hope he and the bike decide to come.
THE SINGLE DOWNTUBE CONTROVERSY by Mark Firkin
At the 1996 Australian Classic Motocross ChampionshipsVern Grayson presented his Cheney Triumph for scrutineering. Eligibility scrutineers John O'Neil and Stuart Young ruled the bike ineligible to compete in the pre '65 class. It appears that their decision was based on their belief that the single downtube Cheney wasn't first produced until after the 1965 cutoff date. When Grayson pointed out to them that he had minutes from the the Pre 65 Club in England stating that the single downtube Cheney was in Great Britain, he was told, "This is Australia, not England". It was also bought to the eligibilitiy scrutineers attention that the machine had passed scrutineering the previous year at Tanunda and not one protest had been recieved. In fact, eligibility scrutineer John O'Neilhad finished third in the same class.
After a heated discussion which also involved MA steward Diane Trueman and Clerk of the Course David Murray, it was decided to let Grayson compete in the pre 65 class on the condition that if anybody protested he would be excluded and that any placings would be withheld until proof of eligibility was furnished.
Grayson raced in the first moto on Saturday morning and, after a poor startfinished third. The Cheney arrived back at the track on Sunday morning to find that the plot had thickened overnight.
It appears that a meeting had been held on Saturday night and the decision had been made to once again exclude the Cheney from competition. When the steward was approached on and asked to uphold her decision from the previous day, she refused and said the decision from the Saturday night meeting would stand. More heated words followed and Grayson was told that the rules of the Pre '65 Club in England, and Eric Cheney's own affirmations, were not considered proof of eligibility and that a twin downtube frame was needed to be eligible.
And that has been the Motorcycling Australia stance since that day. For two years a huge political football has been kicked back and forth between Melbourne and Brisbane and not a lot has been achieved. Let's look at some of the major points of the case.
The MA stance on the case against Graysons Cheney seems to have been based on its belief that the frame is of post 1964 design. In a letter to MA dated 19/04/96, Eric Cheney states: " I confirm we made single downtube frames similar to the Victor frame late 64/65 using ex factory 420 Bush engine B40 bored out to 420".
The above statement was repeated in a letter to the MA Historic Commission dated 24/04/97. In that letter Cheney lists the differences between his period frames and his currentlyproduced replicas. Cheney writes, "The main difference to the nut and bolt replicas are safety features of which I maintain priority over eligibility . IE: Folding footpegs,(correct 45% folding), kill button,side pull twist grip, Beaded edge on mudguards,cables tucked away,exhaust system out of the way (no leg burners), suspension that works, at least 4" of foam in the seats needed with only 4" of rear wheel travel,rear chain guard guides,keep fingers out in event of a tumble".
In a third undated letter to MA Cheney writes, "I do notclain my chassis are nut and bolt replicas of the past but are similar to what I manufactured in the pre 65 period. And I am certainly not repeating the failures that BSA and Triumph had in that period".
So, the whole argument seems to be over just how different (or similar) the replica frame is to its pre 65 counterpart. The Oxford dictionary defines the word 'similar' thus ;a.Having resemblence (to),of the same kind as each other or as something else;(Geom) identical in shape. If we are to take Eric Cheney's word literally there would be no argument. The word of a manufacturer must be taken as fact. He has repeatedly stated that he did manufacture such a frame in 1964.
It's obvious he's made some changes to the original pre 65 single downtube frame but are these changes important enough to cause such a kerfuffle? The lower shock absorber mount on the swingarm is an obvious modern modification. Although the mount is a couple of inches further forward than its pre 65 relative, Grayson has, on many occasions, stated that if they were the only bone of contention he would certainly obtain another swingarm with the mount in the original position.
A point that seems to have need overlooked in this whole debate is the question of just what is the Cheney Victor Replica a replica of ? One school of thought is that the Cheney is supposed to be an exact copy of a BSA Victor frame as the Mead Victor replica frame is claimed to be.
The frame is definitely not a pure replica of the BSA design, and I don't think Eric Cheney ever claimed it to be. What he has done is make a frame, improving on the supposed inadequacies of the BSA design, as the Rickman Brothers had done with their Metisse frames. Where the Cheney conceptdiffers is from the Rickman's is that where the Metisse design remained static once it was developed, the Cheney was in a continual state of change. It appears that the current Cheney is an "averaging out" of the process.
If that is the case, the scrutineers were wrong to disallow Graysons Cheney from competing in the Pre 65 class. It also appears that the criteria for banning the bike was flawed. The 1996 MA rule book states under rule 16:11:2 CHASSIS:A)1)
Framaes can be modified as long as the suspensiojn criteria remains the same, Aftermarket frames(Rickman, Cheney,Champion etc) areallowed as provided that they meet the year cut off dates for the class in which the machine is to compete.That's it!
If Eric Cheney, as the manufacturer, has made some changes to the frame from his original 1964 single downtube design, these changes would need to have been covered by section 1 of rule 16:11:2. Surely the manufacturer has as much right to modify a frame as ant bush engineer as long as the original concept and suspension criteria remain. Section 2 says it all. The Cheney frame is even specifically mentioned. The scrutineers at Barrabool were using a draft edition of the comprehensive eligibility criteria that appears in the current MA Handbook. It appears that they were in error to use this this guide as it was not in general circulation at the time. The MA Handbook should have been their only reference.
Controversy has surrounded the single downtube Cheney frame since the beginning of Classic Motocross in the early 80's in the UK. The Pre '65 Motocross Club in England on March 19 1995, passed a vote 47-9 to allow the single downtube Cheney frame in pre 65 racing throughout the UK. The American Historic Racing Motorcycle Association, the governing body of Classic Motocross in the USA allows the Cheney frame without question. An interesting point worth noting is that the AHRMA is led by former BSA rider Jeff Smith-the same Jeff Smith who won those World Motocross Championships back in 64/65-and Dick Mann, another great former BSA factory rider, two blokes who should know.
Vern Grayson opted not to travel to Western Australia for the '97 Nats but returned to Victoria this year in an attempt to race in the pre 65 class at Ravenswood's Australian Classic Titles. Once again, he was refused. Before this item comes out Grayson will return to Melbourne to face a tribunal that will finally decide either way, the fate of the bike. Let's hope sanity prevails and the Cheney is finally allowed to race where it belongs. The pre 65 class could do withh more machinery of this quality.
