Aftermarket Parts in Pre 75

[TT]

I'm back on my "period correct" soapbox again............ 

I had a bloke in my shed over the weekend who's involved in motorsport but not vintage motocross. He took one look at my Husky and laughed like buggery.  His comment was along the lines of "Surely all that alloy stuff isn't legal for Pre 75?"
Which, of course, got me thinking. I've always maintained that we've lost our way a little bit with the 'vintage' part of vintage motocross, yet here I was with a bike with billet alloy bit dripping off it, trick twin clicker suspension, PD valves, fat bars, fat pegs, a huge alloy swingarm and up until last week, a big fat pipe.

Firstly, was this stuff available in 1974 and if not, why is it allowed in the sport today?

[TT]

Yep.

[VMX247]

Hope this helps a bit Tony T.
I suppose its been allowed,and as long as its eligibility is correct, you can hang what ever shine you like off it.
Having the available money to spend is alway helpful.  
But in short I think its too much bling.
Farleigh Castle pics where a prime example    
Once its dirty you wont see it anyway 

Heres a vintage thread.  
http://ozvmx.com/community/index.php?topic=255.0
Quote:DJracing;Bling has always been around; Fox airshox, Fox forx, DG pipes, Oakley grips, Webco heads and all manner of different things to empty the back pocket.

[TT]

I suppose its been allowed,and as long as its eligibility is correct, you can hang what ever shine you like off it.

That's exactly my question, is it's eligibilty strictly correct? Was this stuff available in 1974?
It might sound strange that I'm challenging my own bike, but the more I look at it, the less I feel that it is in the 'Spirit of Classic Motocross'.

Quote:DJracing;Bling has always been around; Fox airshox, Fox forx, DG pipes, Oakley grips, Webco heads and all manner of different things to empty the back pocket.

Absolutely true, but in the era. Not adding stuff that was deisgned and made in 2010 to a bike that was designed and made in 1974.

I'm not challenging the rules at all, just trying to be clear on which of my billet/aftermarket parts specifically were available in 1974.

[Snowy 76]

I Like the BIG FAT PIPE

[firko]

This is one of my pet subjects . Your bike looks pretty right going by the one small photo you posted Tony. It looks like a really nice bike in fact. I wouldn't worry about the fat pegs, they're one modern accessory that should be encouraged for safety sake. I do however have a thing about fat bars on vintage bikes. I think they look out of place on a vintage bike, especially a pre '75 model. They were fitted to my B&S TM400 when it arrived from the USA and removing them was the very first thing I did to the bike. The swingarm appears to be a replica of a Thor period item and is kosher for the period. My personal take on the shock thing is that external adjusters shouldn't be allowed in pre '75 but I'm not a Nazi about it. I don't have any problem with internal modernisation of suspension or ignitions either as they don't detract from the period look of the bike and help in making the bikes easier to live with. All up though, nice Husky Tony.

[Marc.com]

Yeah i am with Firko, nice bike, fat bars, Scott steering dampeners and such like were not available and look wrong, the swingarm I am not sure about, I thought the deep alloy FMF/Thor arms were post 75 and the round section PDI etc are pre 75.

I mean I guess the point of building a race bike is to have a racing advantage so whatever you can get away with within the rules should be fair play. Aluminium was available pre 75 so no reason why in 1974 someone could not have tricked their bike with your goodies so I think it is cool the way it is.

Vintage road racing is no different and I would imagine car racing given my limited exposure, its racing everyone will look for an edge.

Yep.

[LWC82PE]

That's exactly my question, is it's eligibilty strictly correct? Was this stuff available in 1974?

can you be more specific and say the exact brand name of the components in question. For example if they were aftermarket Webco footpegs then they were around at sometime in the 70's.

[DR]

  peer pressure mate..don't let it sway you Tony if you like the bike how it is then keep it that way. You can always bolt the correct bits back on later. Fortunately I don't race so I build my bikes how I like and within my own 'personal' guidelines of what's acceptable and what's not. It's all material, if it makes you happy then keep it that way looks very nice btw..congrats

[TT]

if you like the bike how it is then keep it that way.

To be completely honest, I like the way it looks, but I probably like things to look like they came from the period more.
The 2 things that bothered me most were the pipe and the fat bars. The pipe's already gone in favour of one that follows the original, the bars will go shortly and so will the massive billet rear brake pedal.
The bike is an absolute weapon and a credit to the builder, it's just not quite "me" yet.
I was worried about the swingarm and I've been trawling through old editions of Dirt Bike to find evidence, but haven't found anything as yet. Good to hear it is a replica of a period item. 
The triple clamps can stay too. Only because they're not so obvious. 

Thanks for all the input fellas. The general consensus seems to be in line with my thoughts.

[Drakie]

OK, my take is (as a scrutineer in the past) that if you can't show me period evidence (mag sales ads with a pic - not a pic of an unobtainium works bike with similar stuff) of those aftermarket items you can't run them. We intended VMX to be glorifying old clunkers with their faults as a limiting factor (eg: 4" rear, 7" front travel, wimpy triple clamps, flexy swing arms, bendy forks, anaemic power etc etc) but then all the rule benders got creative in their search for the upper hand at the races.
This is why I've gone to Vinduro. Tony, it's a nice bike but it sure ain't period correct.

[vmx42]

This is why I've gone to Vinduro…

Don't worry Drakie, the rules will catch up to you there as well. Oh, hold on there ain't no rules!!!!

[montynut]

I know it would have been discussed to death previously but I must have missed it.

The 7"/4" travel rule in Pre75 and 9"/9" travel rule in Pre78, why do they exist? I would have thought that whatever was the travel as manufactured should be acceptable. After all that was the actual competition at that time.

The '74.5 Maico among others had more than 4" travel in the rear which was an advantage but it was not the bike that won everything in that year as it had other weaknesses or short comings. The same applies to the Husky, Maico and Montesa of '77 they had more than 9" travel both front and back, again they did not win everything in sight that year.

All bikes have advantages and disadvantages these bikes had this advantage but obviously had other disadvantages.

Please don't now vilify or banish me for daring to ask this question like I have seen others branded a witch or worse for questioning the 'Deity' like rule book.

[VMX247]

I'm not challenging the rules at all, just trying to be clear on which of my billet/aftermarket parts specifically were available in 1974.

What came out of the box back in 74 was probably what you got-simple era gear   
Another question is how far after did the aftermarket parts come out..??
Now days its August-October and the 2011 gear is out..near on 6 months before the new year cracks,was it the same back in the day ??
cheers
something else to throw in the mix Ben rode a new 350 ktm at Manji on the weekend and it was three years in the making are we advanced or behind in techology ??

[Nathan S]

montynut, It basically comes back to the concept that its all about the "short travel era", not specifically 31st of December 1974.

For whatever reasons, it became 'pre-75', which has since revealed a few weaknesses - including the GP Maicos and YZ-Bs. Personally, I reckon that those bikes should never have been allowed in Pre-75 as they are clearly the first bikes of the new long(er) travel era regardless of their date of release.

The same thing applies for pre-78, but even more clearly. The Pre-78 class is specifically about the bikes that had more than 7/4", but less than the ~12" that bikes subsequently settled on - and yet a significant number of 1977 bikes simply don't meet that criteria.

The regs as they stand are a mis-mash of two idealogies - the one that says "technology is what really matters, and the one that says "the year of manufacture matters" - without actually satisfying either.
IMHO, if we could go back in time, we'd be far better served by rules that followed either idealogy. But I'm equally sure that the cost of ditching the current system and adopting either idealogy now would far outweigh the gains...