Couple of other MOMS please explains

[Montynut]

A couple of issues

1) The MOMS indicates that externally the appearance of engine and gearbox must be unaltered. How does this fit with all the bling bits such as billet goodies fitted to bikes such as ignition and clutch covers (which are supposed to be stronger and seal better, I guess) or other visible performance increases like larger modern reed blocks.

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?

[Ted]

Or foot pegs big enough they wouldn't look out of place on a Harley Road King

[Montynut]

Ted footpegs are not considered major components and in any case they need to be made folding on the older bikes purely on safety grounds.

[09.0]

A couple of issues

1) The MOMS indicates that externally the appearance of engine and gearbox must be unaltered. How does this fit with all the bling bits such as billet goodies fitted to bikes such as ignition and clutch covers (which are supposed to be stronger and seal better, I guess) or other visible performance increases like larger modern reed blocks.

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?

Again common sense should prevail. I would interpret it as a part that is not of the period e.g. later model which enhances the performance. Bling doesn't do that so...

[Nathan S]

I would interpret it as a part that is not of the period e.g. later model which enhances the performance. Bling doesn't do that so...

 
So we're accepting obviously out-of-period stuff, while not accepting bits that were made a year or two after the cut-off?

How is a CNC'd, anodised ignition cover on a YZ125A OK, if a stock cover off a YZ125C or X not?

[Davey Crocket]

Yea, its funny like that Nathan, I asked Dave T a few years ago if I could put a YZ125C clutch cover on my 125A and he said no....fark, it was only to add "bling" as Brad said....no performance advantage at all and I thought with all the bastardised 125C/X's out there adding a clutch cover to the list wouldnt offend anyone new.

[firko]

The 'unaltered appearance' rule is almost impossible to enforce and needs to be reworded or better still, removed sooner than later. I've had DT2MX clutch and ignition covers on my pre 70 DT1 for years with no complaints, what about all of the aftermarket heads and clutch and ignition covers? What about the Wheelsmith cutaway fin conversion on Maicos, CCM fin conversions on BSA B50's & B44's...yada yada yada....the list goes on.

The rule was originally included to ensure that bikes wouldn't be radically changed so much as to lose their period identity but after a year or two it was realised that the paragraph wasn't needed. With the exception of my knocking back a '74 Mag Husky that had a 76 radial head fitted (more because the owner was a tosser who wanted to argue the point than because his bike offended me), I can't recall this rule spoiling too many racers fun over the previous 24 years.

[09.0]

I would interpret it as a part that is not of the period e.g. later model which enhances the performance. Bling doesn't do that so...

 
So we're accepting obviously out-of-period stuff, while not accepting bits that were made a year or two after the cut-off?

How is a CNC'd, anodised ignition cover on a YZ125A OK, if a stock cover off a YZ125C or X not?

Well to start with there is no 'we're accepting'. This is my interpretation. Second of all I know I can wheel my Maico to the line with nearly every conceivable bling part on it and be legal. I would then have to assume that a later model part/s are not, which is ( IMO) why it was written in the first place.

[firko]

I would then have to assume that a later model part/s are not, which is ( IMO) why it was written in the first place.

correct sir......see my earlier reference to the Husky, that was what the rule was set up for but it's not worded correctly.

[Graham]

Hmmm so, if someone changes an original 4 speed box to a 5 speed,would anyone know and is that cheating

[SON]

No externally the same
"Visually Indistiguishable".

[evo550]

A couple of issues

1) The MOMS indicates that externally the appearance of engine and gearbox must be unaltered. How does this fit with all the bling bits such as billet goodies fitted to bikes such as ignition and clutch covers (which are supposed to be stronger and seal better, I guess) or other visible performance increases like larger modern reed blocks.

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?

1) reading that rule in conjunction with acceptable machines and components rule, I would interpret that no "bling" manufactured after the cut off date is allowed.

2) There is for pre 60 and 65 "frames of any manufacture are acceptable within the suspension critera and considerate of the era."

[Montynut]

1) reading that rule in conjunction with acceptable machines and components rule, I would interpret that no "bling" manufactured after the cut off date is allowed.

2) There is for pre 60 and 65 "frames of any manufacture are acceptable within the suspension critera and considerate of the era."

1) That was my reading of it as well. Why is a billet ignition cover for example bling when it could give a performance advantage in muddy conditions as it seals better or billet component being stronger than a cast item. Most 'bling' items have their appeal based on the perception of improved performance.

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 current rules except for the EVO section specifically state when the machine and major components must be manufactured. Am I missing something? I know people can say the intent is this or that but sometimes the rule is literal this seems to be one of them. Otherwise why have any rules at all. The issue of replicas needs to be covered.

[Montynut]

Possible addition
18.5.9 Replicas and reproductions of machines or major components are allowable in all eras. The replicas or reproductions but must be true to the original in all significant details such as geometry (in the case of frames and swing arms), fit and function. They must satisfy all requirements of the applicable era rules with the exception of manufacture date. The replicas and reproductions must be visually comparable to the original when in use. Manufacturing techniques and materials may vary from the original components.

[Iain Cameron]

Thats well worded Montynut .