I sometimes think you guys have got too much time on your hands if your studying the rule book, but it does seem that every year we find a new set of hurdles.
2) The rule 18.5.1.1 & 15.5.2.1 about the "frame of any manufacture" states machines and components manufactured before 1960 or 65. There should be a general rule in the Classic MX and DT setting the guidelines for replicas and I am sure that there was at one time otherwise how can a frame built in 2013 be acceptable. I am not saying they shouldn't be accepted but the rules don't seem to allow them as they presently stand. Considerate of the ERA is also very wide open and lose allowing almost any interpretation.
The rule book states for both pre 60 & pre 65..
“Frames of any manufacture are acceptable within the suspension criteria and considerate of the era.”
This is a new rule, brought in I thought last year.
It sounds a bit loose but I believe its intention is to allow ‘copies’ of home made frames and the like that would have been around in the day but there is no real proof that they existed.
“considerate of the era.” Means you can’t make your frame look like a 74 Maico but if it looks like a Greeves, BSA, (or cheap Chinese Metisse!!) etc then you should be okay.
I believe this is a positive move to encourage bikes into these early classes.
2) There no longer seems to be an allowance in the MOMS for replicas major components such as frames in any of the ERAs. Have I missed it? When did it disappear?
Damned if I know, my 09 book states…
18.6.0.2
All major components must have been manufactured within the period, or be replicas of components manufactured within the period,
Define "Major" components.
It contradicts itself a bit when it states "must be true to the original in all significant details" and "must be visually comparable to the original", but "materials may vary from original components." So I can build a replica swingarm for a flexy pre 75 bike that looks the same, but is made out of carbon fibre/aluminium composite and still be ok?
See how rule can be intrepreted differently?
A composite swingarm?
If someone can make one look the same as a standard arm then I say go for it.
I have built Cro-Mo swingarms that look the same as originals that have won Aussie titles, because they look the same no one has cared / noticed.
The classic Road race section has this, I reckon we should have something similar…
16.4.0.7 Major components are:
a) All engine and gearbox external castings,
b) Frames,
c) Swingarms,
d) Brakes,
e) Forks and fork yokes.
16.4.0.8 All other components shall be considered as minor components.
16.4.0.9 Major components that were manufactured outside a specific period, but which are visually indistinguishable from period components shall be eligible for that period.
16.4.0.10 Modifications to major components are allowed, providing such modifications are visually indistinguishable from modifications proven to have been used in the period.
16.4.0.12 Minor components may be modified or updated, provided that they remain visually compatible with the period being depicted.
16.4.0.7 Major components are:
a) All engine and gearbox external castings,
b) Frames,
c) Swingarms,
d) Brakes,
e) Forks and fork yokes.
16.4.0.8 All other components shall be considered as minor components.
16.4.0.9 Major components that were manufactured outside a specific period, but which are visually indistinguishable from period components shall be eligible for that period.
16.4.0.10 Modifications to major components are allowed, providing such modifications are visually indistinguishable from modifications proven to have been used in the period.
