Works bikes

[09.0]

This pedantic rubbish is doing more harm to our sport than anything I can think of. Any newbie reading this would think we're all a bunch of wankers. The truth is that there are comparatively few eligibility hassles and those that do arise are usually handled promptly and discreetly. This situation shouldn't have lasted this long. Let's hope there's no more of this stuff on the weekend.

Ted you started this thread all wrong
Mentioning almost unobtainable works bikes when you were on the RM B alloy arm eligibility Judgement Day case,
Common sense (which is not that common) says that the arm is legal,
Ted good luck but remember without volunteer officials there is no race meetings.

Come on Ted. The barrow is the old chest nut alloy arm. Which has nothing to do with a works bike.

Again and again, the human part of the equation gets in the way of a few rules and regulations. If you read the rules, right wrong or otherwise, in their simplest form which OBVIOUSLY was the intent, then you can build a bike and compete without a problem. Once you have a barrow aka bike/ part that doesn't fit then the interpretations start to justify said part/bike.
I must say that in this case after talking to people and reading on here that they were around back then and know that the arm is indeed legal bar the actual proof that is required,  which is why it is so hard to get it accepted, not to mention that the powers that be must not have any idea themselves if they were indeed available, hence the onus of proof yadda yadda.
Even the reference of works bike parts is not whether it's covered in the rule book. If the part is off a works bike and clearly not a part that is acceptable for the era, then it's not able to be used.
An official said "no works bike parts are allowed", right? A direct quote? Or was it a bit more elaborate than that? I personally would have said no works parts that are deemed illegal in normal circumstances, for e.g a specific arm, suspension that has too much travel for the era etc etc etc etc....
Anything from Anthony Gunters works bike from 1977 that you wanted to use as proof that it was available in 1975/6/7 cannot be used as proof as it was not available to the public. This is how it is and meant to be but it's twisted around to suit an argument in the form of 'no works parts'.
I also think that having a go at Dave and his bikes is a low shot and also completely false. His bikes meet all criteria for pre 75. Thank god we have blokes like Dave that put in time for free so we can ride. That he does for the love of the sport.

[suzuki59]

so Joan - slightly differnt but same subject - my works cylinder we are discussing - isn't eligible because it was not available to the public??

Shit Ross,are you sure a works cylinder is a wise move?You wouldnt want to fall off and break a finger nail darling.

[firko]

I also think that having a go at Dave and his bikes is a low shot and also completely false. His bikes meet all criteria for pre 75. Thank god we have blokes like Dave that put in time for free so we can ride. That he does for the love of the sport. 

I agree, Dave might not have given you the answer you want Ted but to question his knowledge and credibility is a long stretch. Dave's taken on two of the most thankless jobs in our sport, chairing on the commission and scrutineering eligibility at the Nats but he does it with a smile and is still as keen as he was 20 years ago. Situations like this must make him wonder why he's doing what he does though. Dave's pretty clued up on a large cross section of VMX eligible bikes but he's not Mr Memory, he can't be expected to know everything about every bike....nobody can. That's why he is insisting on bulletproof documentation to prove the B model alloy swingarm was available in 1976. It covers both your and his arses.

Even the reference of works bike parts is not whether it's covered in the rule book. If the part is off a works bike and clearly not a part that is acceptable for the era, then it's not able to be used.

If works bike parts are not legal where do those Karl Landrus works replica swingarms everyone drools over fit in? or RC parts on CR Hondas or for that matter the OW front wheel that was on my B&S TM400? I say they're legal as long as they are from the era in which bike is being raced. Can of worms.

[Nathan S]

Speaking for myself, I may have seen one but I don't really recall or actually care if I have. All a scrutineer has to rely on is documented proof that the part in question existed prior to Dec 31 1977. If you've got proof from Suzuki or a dated magazine article or advertisement dated prior to December 31 1977 any scrutineer must pass it as legitimate. Do not however rely on grainy photos of Anthony Gunter or Gaston Rahier only to prove your case. A similar situation arose back in 98 at the Ravenswood Nats when Brad Lewis fronted scrutineer Peter Drakeford with a 74.5 KTM with factory fitted 45degree lay down shocks. Drakey attempted to knock the bike back as it being a post 75 model but Brad had a large bunch of magazine articles and brochures backing his case. Drakey stood firm but others including myself were called in to adjudicate and Drakey was overruled and Brad was allowed to compete on the KTM. If Brad hadn't done his homework and brought  his documentation, there's no way that bike would have passed. Without the documentation I'd have thought the bike was post '75 myself, as did many others.

And I believe that Brad L hasn't been back to a Nationals since...

This pedantic rubbish is doing more harm to our sport than anything I can think of. Any newbie reading this would think we're all a bunch of wankers. The truth is that there are comparatively few eligibility hassles and those that do arise are usually handled promptly and discreetly. This situation shouldn't have lasted this long.

The fact that the conversation has dragged on so long, shows that we must be a bunch of wankers.
The fact that the conversation has not found a clear resolution shows that the rules are deficient (like I've been saying for eight years now).

The real problem is that Ted can't get a straight answer. He has a justified belief that his alloy swing arm is legal, but has to spend many hundreds of dollars and ~24 hours in the car to find out - including the possibility that he will be told that it is not legal, and that he's just wasted all that time and money.
What makes it worse is that unless it is protested and dragged through the MA process, the answer he's given will not be the final word - right or wrong, the decision will still be heavily influenced by the whim of the scrutineer on the day.

This shit is poison to any sport, and our sport is rife with it.
People want certainty.
Nobody wants to invest their time, money and emotion into a maybe, so they seek a definitive answer but cannot get it.

We need to fix this, or it will continue to corrode the sport.

[FourstrokeForever]

I also think that having a go at Dave and his bikes is a low shot and also completely false. His bikes meet all criteria for pre 75. Thank god we have blokes like Dave that put in time for free so we can ride. That he does for the love of the sport. 

I agree, Dave might not have given you the answer you want Ted but to question his knowledge and credibility is a long stretch. Dave's taken on two of the most thankless jobs in our sport, chairing on the commission and scrutineering eligibility at the Nats but he does it with a smile and is still as keen as he was 20 years ago. Situations like this must make him wonder why he's doing what he does though. Dave's pretty clued up on a large cross section of VMX eligible bikes but he's not Mr Memory, he can't be expected to know everything about every bike....nobody can. That's why he is insisting on bulletproof documentation to prove the B model alloy swingarm was available in 1976. It covers both your and his arses.

Even the reference of works bike parts is not whether it's covered in the rule book. If the part is off a works bike and clearly not a part that is acceptable for the era, then it's not able to be used.

It's true, nobody can be rightly expected to know every little detail of every bike. That is why there is a process at scrutineering that enables us to question a decision. There is more than 1 person to argue (politely of course) your case. Just remember, there is no point standing at the face of the scrutineer trying to sort something out when there are another 30 or so bikes waiting in line behind you. It just puts every one under pressure! When things are slow at the scrutineer line, that is the time to have any discussion about your bike. Between 3 scrutineers, someone will know the eligibility of a part / bike. That in turn educates those that didn't know.
Mark, you helped me out at Connondale in '09 when Dave T knocked back my Elsionore because of the GEM reed valve set up. Thankfully, you knew the part was available in '74 and informed Dave as such so the bike was good to go. I didn't have any documents to verify the reeds as I was new to VMX at that stage and had no idea that was required for proof of said part.
The thing that impressed me was when I ran into Dave T at Broadford in 2010 and he asked if I had the Elsinore with me. He wanted to look at the reed set up. He had a very good look at the set up and I'm sure it has stayed with him ever since. That in turn gives me confidence that the knowledge tree has kept on growing every time a special part turns up to an event.

If works bike parts are not legal where do those Karl Landrus works replica swingarms everyone drools over fit in? or RC parts on CR Hondas or for that matter the OW front wheel that was on my B&S TM400? I say they're legal as long as they are from the era in which bike is being raced. Can of worms.

TOUCHE'
It's about time someone said something logical 

[Rossvickicampbell]

I'm sorry Joan - thought we were talking works bits  :'(  Simple question really  - and then it moved onto Suzuki swingarms again 

Liz - BMB 

[Lozza]

All this is why Log Books were introduced There endeth the carry on.

[supersenior 50]

I'm with Brad 090. The pre Nats frenzy starts. Every year, just before the Nats these issues start getting thrashed about absolutely ensuring the particilar hobby horse in vogue will be a cause of controversy at scrutineering.
If the bike has a "grey area" component why not fit the component that you know will not be questioned.
We are all supposedly here to have some good racing and a good time.The event is made possible by volunteers who in the main do their best with no tangible reward. The rules are in the main very good, but in any set of rules there will be grey areas,and that puts it to the judgement of volunteer scrutineers, and then to an MA appointed official. If they say no because you havn't satisfied them then the onus is up to you.
Why push it when you know it's just a pile of grief for everyone concerned.

[Brian Watson]

Just a note Mark.. the old 31 December "rule" has gone.. it now reads...Acceptable for the pre 78 classes are machines and components that are limited to the 1975, 1976, 1977 models alone. The only exception to this rule is where the model remains unaltered after this date... See you guys in a couple of days... the pub in Boonah does great meals..

[firko]

See you guys in a couple of days... the pub in Boonah does great meals..  

I look forward to seeing you, Bill and the other Sandgropers Brian.............see ya Friday.

[KTM47]

    I still cant get my head around why an original suzuki part catalogue/book dated before 77' with the arm clearly in it -with a part number is not enough documentation ! yet a sketchy photo "could be"  its a bit  like a monty python skit    Iam not even gunna mention the sidepoint B-40 saga  - Errrrrrr

Read GCR 18.2.1.2. your answer is there.

I have no doubt that the optional alloy arm was available in 1977. It was not only used by Gunter but also Phil Thew Moto Suzuki riders in Qld. Gunter and Phil's riders also used the RM 125 B forks on their 370s and 250s, along with the alloy arms on both.

To me the real question is, is the alloy arm being presented an original B arm or a modified C. Davey C has already indicated they have a way of checking this. So I believe an original B arm will be able to be used.

The Steward is Ralph Freeman and apparently the level 4 (Chief) Scrutineer is Derek Rumble.

Also there are other alloy arms that are legal for Pre 78 Suzukis. John Walmsley took measurements of Gaston Rahier's swingarm in 1976 and had Vern G make them for him. There were available to anyone. Steve Cramer used one in 1977.

[DJRacing]

Just a note Mark.. the old 31 December "rule" has gone.. it now reads...Acceptable for the pre 78 classes are machines and components that are limited to the 1975, 1976, 1977 models alone. The only exception to this rule is where the model remains unaltered after this date... See you guys in a couple of days... the pub in Boonah does great meals..

Shhhhh ........ You'll have one scrutineer very worried about that, maybe putting works parts on a Pre75 bike won't make it a pre78 bike after all. (Not my rules) just saying.    
I hope everyone has a very good weekend at the nationals and good luck to everyone.
DJRacing

[bazza]

Hope every one has a good weekend,with no bull shit !!!
Thats what 99% want

[Davey Crocket]

Bazza and DJ, I hope you both will accompany Bill over next year for the Conondale Classic and be part of the fun...it's like CD but different....you'll love it.

[Nathan S]

I'm with Brad 090. The pre Nats frenzy starts. Every year, just before the Nats these issues start getting thrashed about absolutely ensuring the particilar hobby horse in vogue will be a cause of controversy at scrutineering.
If the bike has a "grey area" component why not fit the component that you know will not be questioned.
We are all supposedly here to have some good racing and a good time.The event is made possible by volunteers who in the main do their best with no tangible reward. The rules are in the main very good, but in any set of rules there will be grey areas,and that puts it to the judgement of volunteer scrutineers, and then to an MA appointed official. If they say no because you havn't satisfied them then the onus is up to you.
Why push it when you know it's just a pile of grief for everyone concerned.

Because if we are serious enough to have a national title, then we are serious enough to be looking for an advantage.
The reverse to your argument is equally valid: if its something questionable, why not just let it through?