Couple of other MOMS please explains

[evo550]

Theoretically, it was possible to build upside down forks in 1974........does that mean they would be acceptable?
unrealstic example I know, but thats how the current rule book is worded.

That makes no sense at all. It was possible to build a 2013 crf450 too.

I know it's a ridiculous example, but Johnny O made the comment that a billet ignition cover made in 2013 is legal because it could be manufactured in 1974, my point was that you can't discriminate between components anymore, and that a set of upsidedown forks would be legal also using his theory, because they to could have been built in 1974...theoretically.

What a load of crap.. Hand made engine covers were around in the early 70's, upside down forks came out in 1982. Be realistic!
[/quote]
It's not crap!
You first said it was possible to make them in 1974...you then said they were being made in 1974.
Which one is it?
Under the 2013 rule book if a billet ignition cover was made in 1974 (by DG for example)then it's legal for pre '75 rule, If one was made in 2013 (by GMC for example) then it's not. As I said you can't discriminate between components anymore.
Who made billet ignition covers in 1974?
For the record I couldn't give a flying f#$k who runs what on their bikes, the thread was started asking a question about a specific rule in the MOMS, to which I gave my answer, if you can find a rule that allows the ignition cover (or any other non period component). What's the number?

[09.0]

Any chance the general consensus is that billet parts to bling a bike up are accepted but later model parts are not?   

[Nathan S]

You could cast up an ignition cover in 1974 too.
People were running cast works/aftermarket covers in the day, they weren't running billet covers with the rider's name & race number machined into them.

As Evo550 said, there's not much modern mechanical stuff that couldn't be replicated using technology that was (theoretically) available in 1974.

But hey, the rules are perfect...

[JohnnyO]

Some of you clowns need a rule book 6" thick with every possible scenario listed just so you can't pick holes in the rules.
FFS go for a ride or build a bike and put your brain power towards something usefull..!

[Hardo]

LOL ...   

[firko]

It's pretty simple really, build your bike using major components available during the period the bike is raced or replicas of those parts and you can't go wrong. I think the "the technology to build a 'woftam moderater valve*' was available in 1974 so we should be allowed to use them" argument is a crock of shit. If you can find a photo of a 'woftam moderator valve'* in use prior to 1975 well go right ahead and use it, if you can't, it's illegal. That's my stance on Karl Landrus swingarms (amongst other dubious so called "replica" parts)....his LOP and other replica arms are just fine but his generic rectangular tube alloy swingarms for Evo/pre 90 and pre 75 monoshocks are illegal because they are not replicas of anything available back in the bikes particular era. Use common sense and you won't even need the bloody MoMs to build a bike .

*before some doobie actually asks what it is, it's a bullshit, made up component. 

[evo550]

Some of you clowns need a rule book 6" thick with every possible scenario listed just so you can't pick holes in the rules.
FFS go for a ride or build a bike and put your brain power towards something usefull..!

Come on mate, posts like that are just a shit stir, if you don't like these "rule book" threads then don't join in. Montynut asked a legit question, no point in calling the people who are trying to answer it, clowns..

[mustanggrahame]

I think the big bonus with racing dirt bikes is that the ability of the rider is a huge percentage component of the speed of the bike. Unlike road racing or drag racing where the performance of the bike is critical, our scene is more about how good the rider is. I'm not arguing that it doesn't matter what we do with our bikes, just that it is not the game changer that it could be in a different type of racing. I think if we go with the idea that a pre85 bike should be set up in a way that was possible in 1984 (as an example) is our guideline, we can't go wrong.
Cheers, Grahame

[JohnnyO]

Some of you clowns need a rule book 6" thick with every possible scenario listed just so you can't pick holes in the rules.
FFS go for a ride or build a bike and put your brain power towards something usefull..!

Come on mate, posts like that are just a shit stir, if you don't like these "rule book" threads then don't join in. Montynut asked a legit question, no point in calling the people who are trying to answer it, clowns..

It was getting way off track.. You're right, I shouldn't have joined in

[Montynut]

I think we have pretty much done it to a stand still now. It is pretty obvious the old hands are operating on the 'past practices' position which is fair and reasonable. The problem is that the rules are not clear to a new person coming into the sport. The rules will always have some grey but we seem to have more grey in a couple of areas than black and white. It is clear that 99% of competitors know what is required so that is the main issue.

I don't want a 6" rule book in fact I am a true believer in the KISS principle. The rules were amended significantly a couple of years ago and removed a lot of the problems. The changes were well thought out and simplified things a lot. I think a few things are still to be clarified which was the reason for my questions.

I am going to submit some suggestions for consideration via the normal channels. The guys on the MA committee are doing a great job in a difficult and thankless position and I know my past submissions have been considered fully and fairly.

[evo550]

Some of you clowns need a rule book 6" thick with every possible scenario listed just so you can't pick holes in the rules.
FFS go for a ride or build a bike and put your brain power towards something usefull..!

Come on mate, posts like that are just a shit stir, if you don't like these "rule book" threads then don't join in. Montynut asked a legit question, no point in calling the people who are trying to answer it, clowns..

It was getting way off track.. You're right, I shouldn't have joined in

It's all good, funny thing was my young fella and I went for a quick Sunday arvo trail ride, and I only read that post when I got home.

[Ted]

I think the big bonus with racing dirt bikes is that the ability of the rider is a huge percentage component of the speed of the bike. Unlike road racing or drag racing where the performance of the bike is critical, our scene is more about how good the rider is. I'm not arguing that it doesn't matter what we do with our bikes, just that it is not the game changer that it could be in a different type of racing. I think if we go with the idea that a pre85 bike should be set up in a way that was possible in 1984 (as an example) is our guideline, we can't go wrong.
Cheers, Grahame

Mick Doohan might argue that point

[Lozza]

I think the big bonus with racing dirt bikes is that the ability of the rider is a huge percentage component of the speed of the bike. Unlike road racing or drag racing where the performance of the bike is critical, our scene is more about how good the rider is. I'm not arguing that it doesn't matter what we do with our bikes, just that it is not the game changer that it could be in a different type of racing. I think if we go with the idea that a pre85 bike should be set up in a way that was possible in 1984 (as an example) is our guideline, we can't go wrong.
Cheers, Grahame

Mick Doohan might argue that point

 Casey Stoner would probably agree with Mick.

[Shaun G]

So would Valen...wait sorry no he wouldn't 

[Nathan S]

None of those blokes are particularly noted for their talents as dirt bike racers?!

...the big bonus with racing dirt bikes is that the ability of the rider is a huge percentage component of the speed of the bike. Unlike road racing or drag racing where the performance of the bike is critical, our scene is more about how good the rider is.