Trick as poop AW440 Maico on vft.org

[firko]

So Brian, seeing that I'm slowly building a pre 78 Yamaha 125 let me get it straight.....I can use my Trackmaster aftermarket frame, current technology YSS or Ohlins shocks, FMF Porcupine head, Noguchi cylinder, Lectron flatslide carby, Marzocci forks, Excel rims and modern levers and throttle but I can't use a pipe that runs a different route to the original that comes with the MX125 motor, even though custom pipes were commonly available in the day?

 And you think the wording is "fine" ?

[JohnnyO]

Obssessed...?? that may be a bit over stated..!! what intrigues me are the number of people who comment..then say they haven't read the rules... then say ...well , it is OK... I know it is in the rules , buy, hey, I know ABCD was around in the day so , I'll ignore the rules... I won't be putting a down pipe on any of my bikes any day soon...even tho they were available.. This started out as commenting on a bike ..the moves over to attacking the person... a fairly typical tactic on lots of fourms... For my sixpence... I believe the wording is fine... for pre 75 AND pre 78...

I'm away on holidays mate and silly me didn't pack my rule book.
If you think the wording is fine for pre 78 then you're out of touch with mx history or is it that you're just a one eyed Husky rider because they have an up pipe?
Whoever passed that rule for pre 78 doesn't know enough to have that authority.

[Brian Watson]

 JK.....sounds to me like your just the guy to go onto the Commission and bump Dave Tanner out of the way then..

[firko]

This started out as commenting on a bike ..the moves over to attacking the person... a fairly typical tactic on lots of fourms...

I just went back over the thread to see what "attacking" you were referring to? I can't see any personal slurring or shitbagging, just gentlemanly disagreement on a particular philosophy. Even though I doubt any scrutineer would seriously enforce this rule unless something blatantly dodgy was presented, what worries me is somebody using this rule to protest another racer. I've seen countless protests made on trivial points over the years so leaving this paragraph in the rulebook leaves an open door for serial protesters looking for something to nail someone on. I'd like to make a submission that it be rewritten for the next available MoMs.

While I'm in my "missing out on HBBB" cranky, argumentive mood I reckon that the rules for classic motocross and more urgently classic dirt track need a total overhaul to 1: clearly define situations like the RM125-B swingarm fiasco and other eligibility grey areas and 2: fix up the wording anomolies and poorly written definitions (like the pipe definition) that are prevalent throughout the book. The CDT rules have always been a mirror image of its motocross equivalent but there are a lot of situations where the motocross definition doesn't translate properly to dirt track. Disc brake eligibility in pre 75 being one. We've been talking of these needed changes for years but nothing serious ever seems to be done. It's time a committee of knowledgable enthusiasts is set up to look into the needed changes.

[JohnnyO]

JK.....sounds to me like your just the guy to go onto the Commission and bump Dave Tanner out of the way then..

My life is full already mate but I'd be happy to pass on any knowledge I have.
Rules like the pre 78 exhausts and the one they had about bolt on reed valves not being legal in pre 75 should never have existed.
Dave Tanner certainly isn't the be all and end all of vmx knowledge..

[09.0]

Dave doesn't make the rules, he enforces them and does a mighty fine job as well.
Seems like common sense has no place in politics or on forums.

[Mike52]

We started out with a pikky of a nice looking Maico and ended up bagging Dave Tanner   
Interesting thread 

[JohnnyO]

We started out with a pikky of a nice looking Maico and ended up bagging Dave Tanner   
Interesting thread 

I wasn't bagging Dave I was merely stating there are other people besides him with vmx knowledge..

[firko]

bolt on reed valves not being legal in pre 75 should never have existed

John, bolt on reed valves have always been legal for pre 75. The only stipulation is that a period block be used. Whatever goes inside is up to the individual as long as it can't be detected from the outside. For example, a genuine period GEM reed block is legal on your CR250 Elsinore and if you can fit two stage V force reeds into the GEM block without changing it externally I believe that to be 100% ok. Manufacturing a new reed block to accept V Force reeds that is so wide that the barrel studs have to be moved out 25mm is I believe illegal, the reasoning being that the reed block isn't of the period. I believe that there should be some sort of pipe regulations to prevent pipes like Sieges "Poison Lil" MX250* but as it is the current wording is too restrictive.

Dave Tanner isn't perfect but who among us is? Dave has done brilliantly in what is a very difficult and often thankless job. Even though he's a good friend, I sometimes disagree with what he and his fellow commissioners decide but overall their decisions have been positive for the sport. The sport's a far better place because of Dave Tanners contribution.

                                                      
I mean no disrespect for Siege either, his amazing contributions to our sport have been many and varied. My problem is with fatty style pipes on pre 75 bikes, not with CJ as a bloke.

[JohnnyO]

Firko I stopped riding pre 75 in the late 90's but I was told since that they bought out a rule for a while that stated no reed valves unless they came from the factory with one.
Was that not the case?
I had a GEM on my CR250 because it was a legal period mod at the time

[firko]

John there's nothing in MoMs preventing you using period aftermarket reed valves in pre 75. Rule 18.6.0.4 (c) states...No reed valved permitted on machines up to and including Pre 70 class. There's nothing else mentioning them except the stupid 18.6.0.1 which states....Engines must remain externally unchanged which could be used to build a case stating that an aftermarket reed cage changes the appearance of the engine so it could be deemed to be be illegal.......Another example of the rules needing a thorough overhaul.

[Rossvickicampbell]

JO - had my GEM fitted CR 250 at two Nats with no issues - and have seen several others as well - GEMs are not a problem for pre 75.

[JohnnyO]

JO - had my GEM fitted CR 250 at two Nats with no issues - and have seen several others as well - GEMs are not a problem for pre 75.

Yeah Ross I raced my CR250M with a GEM reed at the 93 & 94 Nats with no problem but after selling it to Col Metcher years ago he told me they were bringing in a rule that stated only OEM reed valves were going to be legal. I'm assuming now that rule never made it into the books. I've been out of touch with pre 75 for a while.