Bike eligiblity, arguments and perspective

[Iain Cameron]

Geoff the Ma rule book is the only rules if your going to race in a MA event . If its not listed as in the cut off dates or parts allowed don't be surprised if some one picks up on it . Agree or disagree with how MA runs it these are the RULES we run by . Iain

[Nathan S]

again Nathan - for non competitive events not a drama - that level of flexibility can't fit into something where people are racing for "sheep stations". And what is next - move the rules to accommodate your stance and then the next guy comes along, followed by the next guy etc.  Why bother at all.

Why not identify and change those that aren't correct rather than just ignoring the lot.  Why do we get away from the fact that a huge percentage of our followers have done the right thing, one way or the other and we want to accommodate those that don't.

I reckon all the 180 riders and 500 bikes at Conondale fell into the right categories with minimal fuss?

Obviously it's not a "one size fits all events" thing, but I still think that's the direction we need to be pointing - even for the nationals (which would be the lowest tolerance event).

We should be wholesale ignoring a lot of things we currently don't - not the big stuff (obviously), but stuff like top triple clamps with/without rubber mounts, casting lugs on fork lowers, and that sort of irrelevant nonsense.

[Michael Moore]

If you are going to have a race event, you need rules.  If you have rules, they need to be clear, and they need to be enforced by the officials and followed by those who have entered.  If you don't like the rules at an event, you should either work to change them or not enter the event.  You may (rightly) think it is a dumb rule but by entering you've agreed to follow the rules. 

If the officials are not going to enforce a rule, or enforce it unevenly, they need to eliminate that rule or change it to a form that they will enforce.  I find it very annoying to go to some effort to meet a rulebook requirement just to see officials ignoring other people who couldn't be bothered to make that effort.  It also makes me lose respect for the officials and the organization they represent.

It is helpful if the rules can be easily enforced by a visual inspection.  My local modern RR club has a "production" class and pretty much anything goes on the inside of the engine but you've got to retain the unmodified stock intake/exhaust components.  Those parts limit the utility of the internal mods and you can inspect them without an expensive tear-down.  This makes it easy for the club to enforce.

My own take on vintage rules is that they should be more about general "does it look period" appearance and functional issues than "sorry, we know it is the same part but your's is stamped 1 day after the cut-off so it can't be used" nit-picking.  If you have a short-travel class then saying that everyone has a max of 7"/4" and has to meet that no matter what the bike had originally is easy to follow and easy to enforce.  Yes, having 7.125" may not make a significant difference but sorry, a line has to be drawn somewhere.  Besides, it usually isn't terribly difficult to snub the travel down a bit to meet the required amount.

Each major period has a certain style.  Most people can probably determine "looks right for the time" without a lot of disagreement. If a conical wheel hub looks reasonably period, does it really matter if the one fitted is from a 1969 CZ, a 1974 Bultaco or a 1981 CR250?  They'll all work pretty much the same and from 10 feet they can look pretty similar and "old dirt bikeish".  But a late 1970s "snail pipe" exhaust on a Rickman Villiers just doesn't look right.  Be reasonable about things.

There were lots of bitzas and DIY chassis (some very innovative/weird) made in the 50/60/70/80s.  If someone wants to mix and match period parts, more power to them.  If someone wants to build a frame that looks (and functions) similar to something that was (or could have been) made in the period, that's wonderful.  It adds some interest, it makes the builder happy, and it probably won't be making a back marker suddenly zoom to the front.  There's only so much you can do when you are limited to period suspension.

Sauce for the goose should also be sauce for the gander.  If bike X is allowed something, every other bike in that class should get the same treatment.  Conversely, if all the other bikes are limited to X, than bike Y also needs to be limited to X, no matter how it came (e.g. 4" rear suspension limits and AJS Stormers).

I think the goal should be to have as few simple rules as you can get away with and still present the kind of bikes that you want for the event.  There should be some flexibility for dealing with a rare "just over the line" issue but I'd think that is best done with "you get one free pass, it MUST be fixed the next time you enter".  If you go back to turning a blind eye then you are better off rewriting the rule because official favoritism makes the officials look bad and it makes the racers unhappy.  It is nice when everyone goes to an event and comes away happy!

cheers,
Michael

[FourstrokeForever]

QUOTE

There were lots of bitzas and DIY chassis (some very innovative/weird) made in the 50/60/70/80s.  If someone wants to mix and match period parts, more power to them.  If someone wants to build a frame that looks (and functions) similar to something that was (or could have been) made in the period, that's wonderful.  It adds some interest, it makes the builder happy, and it probably won't be making a back marker suddenly zoom to the front.  There's only so much you can do when you are limited to period suspension.

UNQUOTE

I couldn't agree more....

If someone goes to the great lengths required to build a "special" from a whole lot of parts that would otherwise have no use, then why exclude it from an event IF it complies with the suspension/engine/look of the period?

People have been modifying and attempting to make bikes "better" since the beginning of all things 2 wheels.

Believe it or not, most of us will never be competing for "sponsored rides or money"! Most of us have had our youtrhful race lives and now just want to ride our old bikes with a bunch of like minded people and hopefully get to put in a few good laps bangin' 'bars with someone of our own ability.

And this is the success of club days. No one is out to stop someone from riding IF their bike looks like it's "right".
If you do happen to get the bug to contest the "nats", I'm sure asking around at the club if your "special" will comply within whatever period you wish to contest will get you an answer one way or the other.

The serious racer will always be just that. The rest of us are in it for the fun, friendship and bench racing!

I don't give a rats about alloy swingarms on a 77 model RM, longer shocks (withing travel limits) on a 76 CR or "incorrect" hubs on a Hodaka. The more bikes on a start line the better in my opinion.

There is a rule book for us to go by. Every licensed racer gets one yearly. Even then, there will always be those that try to push the boundaries of eligibility. Crikey, even F1 has issues from time to time.

Take the seriousness out of riding our old bikes and there will be alot less "issues".

That's my $2 worth,
Mark

[supersenior 50]

This post is in general terms the right approach, and yes we do need rules. My observation is ( never been a scrutineer) that broadly speaking our current rules are pretty good and in most instances when someone gets pinged it's because they are trying it on, or innocently unaware. In recent years I've generally found scrutineers to be fair. The common scenario is bring an iffy bike to a meeting, get pulled up, blame the scrutineer, organising club, the rules, MA and anything else.
Sure there are exceptions, we are talking about volunteers doing an onerous job.
As Michael says, when you enter you are accepting the rules relevant to that meeting. Don't like it, don't enter.Then rationally put a proposal through the channels re the change you want to make.
I have been involved in organising MX events off and on for 50 years, and there is nothing new in all this.

[supersenior 50]

TBM I put a proposal up last year which is now in the MOMS, addressing your point re frames. My proposal was for Pre60 and Pre65 as in that period most scramble bikes were a mix and match, with the exception of a few new production 250 two strokes.

[firko]

Michael articulates beautifully what are in essence our rules as they sit right now but with a little more latitude. While I've always been a stickler for period integrity I think it's time that we loosened up some of the rules as long as any changes aren't in contradiction of the historic feel of the period we're racing in. Absurd situations like the RM125 swingarm debacle, the bolt up CZ hub situation for pre 65 and other pedantic interpretations of the rules would be a thing of the past (theoretically ). I still believe that the period look of a bike from 5 paces must be maintained which would outlaw non period specific alloy swingarms and possibly some billet triple clamps. In a nutshell, I think a bike should  look like it's been transported by time machine from the period it was first raced. 

[FourstrokeForever]

TBM I put a proposal up last year which is now in the MOMS, addressing your point re frames. My proposal was for Pre60 and Pre65 as in that period most scramble bikes were a mix and match, with the exception of a few new production 250 two strokes.

Col, I know you put in a lot of effort to make changes where you think they might benefit the sport as a whole. We had a similar conversation over WA at the 15th anniversary.

Can I just add though, even manufacturers were changing set ups of shock position, engine position and swingarms mid way through a race season. All in an effort to get a better handling bike. Sometimes it worked, other times it went back to shed!

I guess all I am attempting to get across is that if a bike frame/engine complies with year of manufacture, suspension travel limits, similar brake set up and has the correct "silhouette" about it, then I feel it should be good to go. All this hooha about shock position, swingarms etc is just that....HOOHA. It doesn't always make for a better bike, but, the rider/builder likes it and it looks the part. Above all else, it gets another bike and rider into the mix.

Firko,

I do also believe that the bike should appear to have traveled from a time way back when. As long as ANY part on the machine was available in the day from either the manufacturer or aftermarket guru, it should be good to go. Sure, "that part" may be as rare as hens teeth and not everyone will have "it", but does it matter if it complies and can be proved to be era specific?  Even back in '74, racers were able to lay down shocks and change clamps etc. Kits were available to make the job easier. A whole aftermarket industry was created around trying to make a good bike better, or so the average punter felt as though they might be able to compete with the factory and team bikes. And it is still that way today.

Yes, rules are rules. I just feel that perhaps VMX as a stand alone sport (past time) might benefit from a little bit of a loosen up in the rule department, all in an effort to get more "bums on seats".

Cheers,
Mark

[Big Bird]

Well I popped in at Yanakie (Viper) today, and thought it was brilliant.  Great atmosphere in the pits, competitive but friendly, got some good advice for my RM's - just the sort of  event I'm looking for.  Seems my observations at HBBB might have been a minority.

Some lovely HL500s to ogle too.

Thanks to those who took the time to chat today (Mick, Paul, Lawrence, Allan - they're the names I remember - who knows if they frequent this forum), and I'm eager as to get a bike out on track now. 

And thanks all for your contributions above - seems we are more agreed than divided in our wants.

Cheers all

Geoff 

[Big Bird]

Sorry to drag up an old thread, but thought it the best place to post this.

I know this engineering lecturer, very intelligent guy, had some wise things to say about project management, and had condensed some of these pearls of wisdom into catchy slogans.  The actual points he made are irrelevant to this argument - it was more how he delivered them.

Just like Tony Abbott's "Stop the boats" mantra, this guy believed that the more he repeated his slogans, the more likely people would remember and act on his words.  What he failed to notice (or maybe refused to notice) was that eventually a saturation point would be reached beyond which the audience just signed off.  From there, the more he repeated his arguments, the more they were dismissed, and the more of a parody he became of himself. 

Which brings me to these forums.  There are some well thought out opinions posted here, and some rather fiercely contested arguments.  Often I will see both sides of the argument, and feel wiser for having watched on.  But often it seems the desire to share an opinion becomes overwhelmed by the desire to win an argument - and the whole thing then descends into the kind of repetition parody I mentioned above.

I know there are shortcomings in rules and events being cancelled and bike prices dropping and assorted other problems afflicting our pastime.  I know what a few of the regulars will say on each of these points.  I wholly respect their arguments and their right to say it.  What drives me to despair is having to see these same arguments appearing over, and over, and over...

When the same argument is put numerous times, maybe with a word changed here and a nuance there, I start to wonder whether all this invested energy is about making our pastime better, or whether it is about self gratification.  Surely if it is about the former, we would have some sense of when our arguments are becoming harmful to our community.

To me VMX has two conflicting images:
 - a community of people enjoying a shared passion for old bikes, laid back racing and a common delusion of how fast we used to be
 - a community of stubborn men engaged in mind numbingly circular arguments about nothing

If anything will kill off VMX it will be the latter.  But until it does, I'm going back to the resto thread to check out the Maico porn, and Johnny O's KX400 thread. 

And to fully compromise my position on repetitive arguments, I'll finish by repeating that I still think that Johnny O's track should be called the O-Ring 

[Tahitian_Red]

Very good points!  Our local post-74 racing was hurt be bickering and head butting.  As a side note it also brought down the value of our machines, because there was nowhere to race them.
 

[09.0]

If it weren't for the human interaction, this forum would be great! 
Good points for sure.
Johnny's O-ring sounds a little to 'back door' ish to me.

[Tony T]

In a nutshell, I think a bike should  look like it's been transported by time machine from the period it was first raced.

I generally avoid all such topics as I'm not active in the racing scene and don't feel qualified to comment, but this one line sums up what I find interesting about old dirt bikes.
I think most racers out there are more concerned with just riding and performance improvement as opposed to having any interest in the historic aspect of the bikes and the racing.
How many do you see going to the trouble of trying to 'look the part'?
I'm not saying this is wrong, it is racing after all, it just means that I personally find very little to get excited about at the average VMX race meeting.
So I find myself enjoying more time in the shed exploring the technical aspects of older bikes and the older I get, the earlier my period of interest becomes.
Although, most of my racing was from the late 70's to the early 2000's, I find little of historical interest in anything beyond about 1980.

How any of this relates to the topic is beyond me, but that one line really struck a chord with me and I just wanted to comment.   

[firko]

In a nutshell, I think a bike should  look like it's been transported by time machine from the period it was first raced

Looking at my above quote some might assume that I'm calling for all bikes to be as they left the factory. While I give full support to those who follow the factory stock philosophy, what I really meant was that bikes should accurately reflect the period from which it was raced, allowing for period correct modifications and accessories. If my repeated mantra of period integrity puts me in the position of my becoming a parody of myself, so be it. I think that the period integrity philosophy is the most important aspect of what our sport's all about and feel that we need to be periodically reminded of it.

[Ted]

Even with the rules we have in place the RM B alloy arm debacle ( as it was earlied titled) is adjudicated on, wholly and solely by one man and one man only. Forget MA. Forget Classic Sports Dirt Committee.

I know this for a fact. A simple phone call to the head scrutineer at the upcoming CMX titles told me so. He requested a photo of it. I took a photo and sent it to him. He said the photo is not too clear however I think it has been modified and the brake stay lug has been welded on Post 78. How he came to determine this I have absolutely no idea. When I enquired about his assumption his reply was I will have to ask the one and only man ( name withheld ) who can pass it.

Anyway I will have it with me at CMX. Get your $70 ready