Pre 78 Rule changes

[albrid-3]

yEP, Clubs should guide the new comers in the right direction on the rule book for vintage , on the classes and era they are planning to run in, I think the rule book explans the rules well, very easy and common sense.

[worms]

WHAT! is VMX now kindergarden, how much more presure do want on committees? FFS , it's real easy, dont ride if you cant make the effort or a least try to understand your sport.

get a rule book and read it, it's not that fu--king hard.

have a nice day, Worms

[STW996]

Trevor with all due respect I don't go along with this view point on the 78 bikes. It is not about understanding your sport it is about the enjoyment of running in the sport is it not?

I do not see why a bloke that has a period correct bike should have to alter it the conform with with a bike that is not competitive. Remember vintage racing (in general) is about the bikes and not the rider. I was at best a mid pack C grader in my day and I can asure you if I was on my 2010 CRF 450 I would not have been able to beat Brad (090) on his pre 78 bike, end of story.

But I was riding (well tried too) a 76 CR 250 that by the rules is limited in its ability due to the fact it has short suspension. What people did it the day was to change the suspension points on the rear to aid travel but by the very same rule book this is not allowed (18.5.5.2 Front wheel travel will not exceed 229mm (9 inches) rear wheel travel will be limited to 229mm (9 inches) measured at the axle. Rear shock absorbers will be in the original position using the original mounting points) this is taken from the current MA rule book.

Look so Why limit this bike??? we could have (and did) in the day change suspension points but no one has bought that up. If you want to win a nats and the bike of choice is a RM250 then go out and buy one win the thing and be happy with yourself, if you are like the other 30 riders in the race and want to run a bike you had in the day or dreamed of owning I am sure I know who will be getting the best enjoyment.

Like all things in life things from time to time they may need to be review and maybe it is time for this rule (class rules) to be reviewed. I do, however go along with the premise that if you go to a championship meeting the bike should be legal (under the current rules) and if not then it should be excluded (before the event would be better and not after the running). After all we all need to live by rules.

As for the new topic on this post re the bike Glenn Bell was riding it should be pointed out it is not Glenn's bike and the person who does own the bike has some very special bikes and are all first rate. I have spoken to him about the forks and yes they are period correct. It is one of the reasons he does not usually run at "Nats" because of all the B.S. that goes with it.

I would think we have a lot more problems in vintage racing (cancellation of the post vintage nats for one!!) that need attention then some of the dribble this topic has seen.

[Rossvickicampbell]

question - and nothing more - no opinion and not wanting to get shot.  But if my old mind remembers rightly MA upheld a protest in the recent past saying that just because a part was available to the factory in a particualrly era (pick one) doesn't mean it is legal - therefore the comments about prototype forks being available to Lackey etc but not Joe Blogs should be wrong as an OK to use them no?

[worms]

great response Shane, I guess my point is, no matter what rules are in place they will be debated.
the rules can be made easier to understand,
 
the pre 78 rule is a pain in the arse for non competitive riders, if a bike was made in an era and raced that way, that should be the end of it.
 
I agree with both sides of the arguement, except everyone must agree with me

cheers Worms, now I'm going riding.

[bazza]

some good points of view both ways,at the end of the day it mostly effects the nats not club days? May be as the nats are ignored things will change?

[firko]

I have spoken to him about the forks and yes they are period correct. It is one of the reasons he does not usually run at "Nats" because of all the B.S. that goes with it.

Aw shucks, so the sensitive little pup doesn't race the Nats because of the bullshit involved? Over the last 20 plus years I've observed Geoff Holmes bikes both up close and from the sidelines and while I'm the first to admit that his bikes are lovely looking bits of kit and very well constructed, they also test the rulebook and the poor bugger appointed by MA to adjudicate on their legality. I have no problem with Geoff as a person, in fact I find him a nice bloke but I do have to ask why he seems to always have to test (and often exceed) the boundaries of legality with many of his bikes.

I witnessed the scenario leading up to his Honda CR125's disqualification at the '94(?) Cherabah Nats and to this day still scratch my head as to why, after the bike passing scrutineering with legal forks fitted, he changed to an illegal set of forks in front of many witnesses including myself and his main opposition in the class, the man who would eventually submit a successful protest. I also remember the CR450 engined Honda RZ250 Geoff presented for Evo when it was crystal clear by the rules that the bike wasn't kosher.

As someone who relishes building trick bikes myself I can well understand his enthusiasm in building bikes using the trickest components available during the racing period the bike represents. I just don't understand why he and others go past those limitations and then complain about "all the B.S. that goes with it (The Nats). when "the bullshit" is there to prevent racers crossing the legality guidelines.

[JohnnyO]

question - and nothing more - no opinion and not wanting to get shot.  But if my old mind remembers rightly MA upheld a protest in the recent past saying that just because a part was available to the factory in a particualrly era (pick one) doesn't mean it is legal - therefore the comments about prototype forks being available to Lackey etc but not Joe Blogs should be wrong as an OK to use them no?

Did you read my whole post or just selective bits? I'll say it again, Simons upside down forks were available to the general public in 1984

[VMX247]

WHAT! is VMX now kindergarden, how much more presure do want on committees? FFS , it's real easy, dont ride if you cant make the effort or a least try to understand your sport.
get a rule book and read it, it's not that fu--king hard.
have a nice day, Worms

totally agree,though other club members also need to step up to the plate and help out.
Hopefully while not getting penalised/demoralised while doing so,while having the knowledge available to the newbee's.Whom may have never riden a vintage bike or not thrown there leg over one for 30 odd year.
Its as fine as fishing line this politics 
A percentage of people dont know the rule book or MA even exist.
cheers

[Iain Cameron]

There I can't agree with you VMX247 , When you get your licence the rule book comes with it . (Officer I didn't know it 40k's I didn't read the limit signs ) Iain

[GD66]

Sadly that is the case Alison, but I agree totally with you that well-meaning club members should take the newbies who turn up bright-eyed and keen to re-live their youthful endeavours running on a one-event licence aside, and patiently run them through chapter 18 of the MoMS and outline what's required if they intend to get more involved.
Historic roadracing in particular is littered with tales of blokes who have knocked up an old weapon, turned up on spec to discover they or their bike don't fit within the rule stucture, and drive off cursing, vowing never to return. As a result, every time I hear of someone getting keen to build something, I implore them to read the rule book before they cut or weld anything. Likewise, there's nothing wrong with having a first-timer roll up to a club meeting with an out-of-period-rule bike and allowing them a tryout day, but they should be firmly but politely guided down the correct path should they wish to continue to get involved.
As for race riders not being familiar with the MoMS, there's no excuse for anybody not to have sat down for an hour or so and familiarise themselves with the rules of their chosen sport/hobby/pastime/passion.

[Rossvickicampbell]

JO - settle petal - as I said simple question asked about comments made with regards some works bits - if they are available in the time I think they are OK - but I believe (and this was the point of my question and was just using your comment as a prompt) that if factory does not necessrily mean they are MA compliant - not questioning your statement - not that stupid?  But people can't just go "because they were on a Honda works bike in 84 means.........................."

[pancho]

There I can't agree with you VMX247 , When you get your licence the rule book comes with it . (Officer I didn't know it 40k's I didn't read the limit signs ) Iain

I must enquire as to why I didn't get one with my M.A. licence last month.
Pancho.

[JohnnyO]

JO - settle petal - as I said simple question asked about comments made with regards some works bits - if they are available in the time I think they are OK - but I believe (and this was the point of my question and was just using your comment as a prompt) that if factory does not necessrily mean they are MA compliant - not questioning your statement - not that stupid?  But people can't just go "because they were on a Honda works bike in 84 means.........................."

No worries Ross I'd agree with that..

[albrid-3]

Steel my thunder, forum memebers. when Peter Drakeford was scrutineering at national meeting, he was so on the ball, and stopped a lot of cheaters, and people hated him, we need people like that
who stands up to these people, if the bike is not right on the day, take it away and fix it, come back when its right. its not rocket science.