Works bikes

[TM BILL]

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

I think this is what DJs referring to

Davey Crocket
Legend
*****
Posts: 3501
View Profile  Email  Personal Message (Online)

Re: Works bikes
« Reply #55 on: Yesterday at 01:37:33 PM »
Quote
I think you would find Bill, if you limited the suspension travel to pre75 spec's , those 74 RH/RN's are in....it would be great to see more of that stuff out and about. I'm building a replica OW12 out of a YZ250B, I have some cool OW parts for it and it will be pre78 legal. ....speaking of which....how's me parts coming along...LOL...

[firko]

Thank god the dark and depressing world you describe doesn't exist in the real world Nathan. I don't envision many problems with eligibility, as per normal.

I'm looking forward to helping with eligibility, if only to prove to myself that most of the forum eligibility situations are the products of bored minds looking for hypotheticals to prove how smart they are at finding 'loopholes'. Most of these doom and gloom situations don't exist in the real world.

[supersenior 50]

Because Nathan if it's questionable the onus is on the owner.
Because if is questionable and the scrutineer knocks it back he pisses off the owner,
     "                     "                             "      lets it go he pisses off others in the class
If "it's no real advantage so why not let it go"?
Equally if it's no advantage why fit it and start another controversy.
Im talking generally and not alluding to swing arms or specific issues.

[Simo63]

I just want to ride .. and socialise .. and have fun ... and ride .. and socialise ... and have fun ... and ride ... and socialise ... and have fun ... see the pattern here

Whether it's a practice day, a club day or a championship day .... the above holds true.

[Nathan S]

Because Nathan if it's questionable the onus is on the owner.
Because if is questionable and the scrutineer knocks it back he pisses off the owner,
     "                     "                             "      lets it go he pisses off others in the class
If "it's no real advantage so why not let it go"?
Equally if it's no advantage why fit it and start another controversy.
Im talking generally and not alluding to swing arms or specific issues.

My point is that it is a two-way street.
Either:
A) We have a National Title with all the hoopla like we do, and we have to expect that competitors will take it seriously - including seeking an advantage within the rules (and possibly outside of the rules),
OR;
B) We're all just a bunch of people out to throw some dirt around using knobby tyres, in which case people will have far less reason to push the boundaries and there's no problem if people do happen to overstep the mark.

Instead, we're locking in the schism where we lurch between the two, depending on the moods of personalities involved at the time...

[Nathan S]

Thank god the dark and depressing world you describe doesn't exist in the real world Nathan. I don't envision many problems with eligibility, as per normal.

I'm looking forward to helping with eligibility, if only to prove to myself that most of the forum eligibility situations are the products of bored minds looking for hypotheticals to prove how smart they are at finding 'loopholes'. Most of these doom and gloom situations don't exist in the real world.

So why do we KEEP having these conversations about eligibility, ad nauseum?

What you seem incapable of understanding is that your position in the VMX world is utterly atypical. You've been neck-deep in the sport from the very start, and still hold a lot of influence.
Very, very few other people have that sort of depth of involvement.
Virtually everything you offer in these eligibility debates is based on what you know to be the intent thanks to your knowledge of the history - its a useful perspective, but people shouldn't need Firko (or any specific person) to decode what is legal or not.
 
The rules should make the intent clear so that anyone can put a bike together and confidently take it to any VMX meeting in the country and KNOW that it is legal.

These questions keep coming up for a reason - and dismissing the people who ask them as 'bored troublemakers' does nothing to stop them coming up time and again.

 

[bazza]

       Enjoy the meeting folks

[firko]

What you seem incapable of understanding is that your position in the VMX world is utterly atypical. You've been neck-deep in the sport from the very start, and still hold a lot of influence.
Very, very few other people have that sort of depth of involvement.
Virtually everything you offer in these eligibility debates is based on what you know to be the intent thanks to your knowledge of the history - its a useful perspective, but people shouldn't need Firko (or any specific person) to decode what is legal or not

I've had little influence on the sport in years but that's an aside. What you keep avoiding is that the eligibility problems you allude are almost non existent. Don't underestimate the average racer to know his model bike and the era with scholarly vigor.  They understand the rules for their class and build and race their bike accordingly with little or no need to fudge the rules. Vintage racers aren't idiots, they can decipher the rules pretty easily and most of them don't go digging looking for hidden loopholes or double meanings like you seem to think they do. They just build their bike and get on with it, with little or no thoughts of cheating or rule bending. We all know that he rules are a long way from perfect, but they're not the disaster you tell us they are either.

Why am I arguing the point, there no need because the majority of us think this discussion is irrelevant.

[Ted]

While I don't believe this arm will get the green light, I will guarantee that I dispell any belief surrounding the mystical RM 125 B optional alloy swingarm and that they are not doctored C arms. I will point out to the head scrutineer how to differentiate between the two. Thus laying to rest once and for all the threat of somebody cheating with a later model C arm. Which to me is 80% of the battle.

The other 20% is proving to some that it existed prior to 1978. I will find this evidence, unfortunately not before this Friday but I will find it.

This thread is locked.