Works bikes

[Nathan S]

I have found the information to determine what is a optional B arm as opposed to a modified C arm.

Shit. That will kill about half the forum traffic then....

[Tim754]

Ted after the weekend could you be so kind as to share that info here if possible?

[ba-02-xr]

OOOOOO my god. I have been away from VMX for a few years now. Now I live nearer to the QLD action I was thinking its time to get my cr125 out of storage & get into it again. I have just sat here & wasted 45 mins of my life on this thread & now thinking I might stay playing on moderns & coaching kids. I thougt junior sport was bad but you guys make them look profesional.

[TM BILL]

Let it go Bill.

I will prove to them on Friday it's not a butchered C arm. Then they will be forced to make a call either way.

4 officials 4 different answers.

I am starting to wonder if any of them have ever viewed one.

I want to Mark but it is about more than the optional Suzuki arm its about how these things are handled by those in positions of power , officialdom call it what you like .

I make no secret that i dont like rules and regulations in any walk of life and have been fighting the establishment since i started school 

However sports need rules and recreations need guidelines 

I think what you have in Australia is a bloody good model on how to run and grow vintage off road motorcyling. My interest is limited to VMX and Vinduro and your guys structure and rules are IMHO very very good.

The problems i have seen both on this forum ( cyber problems if you like ) and the ones i have witnessed and experienced at events seems to stem from officials interpretation of the rules and a lack of continuity .

Everyone is quick to roll their eyes at the mention of that bloody arm , but Ted has gone down the official road and has still been left hanging .

Im not bagging vollenteers or officials , i have been on MC club commites, been a club president and a club secretary for many years and been a MX commisioner for MNZ . I have run many events at both club and national level so i have seen it all from both sides .

Surley somthing like this bloody arm could have been cleared up a long time ago and been added to the MOMs . I think the question of this item was first raised on this forum after the Conondale nats ( 3 yrs ago ? ) and still joe licence holder doesn't have an answer . Those at the top have said on here that this forum is NOT where decisions will be made , but Ted has taken it to the top and still nothing. When will the licence holder know wether or not he has to carry a selction of swinging arms to events so to comply depending on whos on duty that day and what mood their in 

[Ted]

rule GCR 18.2.1.2.

Ted this is the only rule you need to satisfy same as you have been told several hundred times since you bought the bike. Almost everyone agrees that it makes SFA to the bikes performance. You just have to be able to prove that it was available for the 'B' model in 1977. Another several pages almost exactly the same as several pages early in the year. The problem is no one seems to be confident enough or actually have any evidence other than a parts book (which is specifically ruled out by the MOMS) that the alloy arms were ever actually sold or even available.

Without covering old ground the early 'C' models had the arm with the lug attached the original sales leaflets showed the lug on the swingarm. Surely one Suzuki dealer  or owner from the day will sign a Statutory Declaration. I hope that you can run the arm so this bloody thread does not keep coming up then what about a floating brake. I had a 'B' model in '77 with a floating rear brake is it legal should be, now can I have the optional alloy swingarm with a floating brake should be able to, right. Now if I cut the brake lug off my optional alloy arm because I have a floating rear brake is that OK, well that would make it an awful lot like a 'C' model

Oh GOD that would not be legal, RIGHT

With respect, according to the MoMS, I do not have to prove that it was available for a 1977 model. It could be off a 76,75 model of any manufacturer, being aftermarket or factory.

All I have to prove is , Was an aluminium swingarm available for a Suzuki prior to 31/12/1977. Well it was. Rahier in 1976 and 1977 Gunter in 1977. There is absolutely no reference in the MoMS that says parts sales dockets need to be produced. There is also no limitation on who or where these parts are sourced. Not one reference to works, pre production parts being illegal. As long as there is proof of Suzuki racing bikes prior to 31/12/1977 wearing aluminium swingarms, as we all have seen in the pics of DeCoster, Rahier, Gunter and countless others it has to be legal to use a Suzuki optional aluminium swingarm made for a B model on a Pre 78. I have an original alloy B arm, not a modified C arm, which I will bring to scrutineering and point out the difference.

You state that early C models came out with the lug on them. My bet is they were left over optional B models arms that weren't sold due to the high price of them. From memory they wanted about 30% of the purchase price of the bike extra just for a swingarm.

Like I said we will have an answer on friday

[Ted]

Ted after the weekend could you be so kind as to share that info here if possible?

No problem Tim.

[Montynut]

rule GCR 18.2.1.2.

Ted this is the only rule you need to satisfy same as you have been told several hundred times since you bought the bike. Almost everyone agrees that it makes SFA to the bikes performance. You just have to be able to prove that it was available for the 'B' model in 1977. Another several pages almost exactly the same as several pages early in the year. The problem is no one seems to be confident enough or actually have any evidence other than a parts book (which is specifically ruled out by the MOMS) that the alloy arms were ever actually sold or even available.

Without covering old ground the early 'C' models had the arm with the lug attached the original sales leaflets showed the lug on the swingarm. Surely one Suzuki dealer  or owner from the day will sign a Statutory Declaration. I hope that you can run the arm so this bloody thread does not keep coming up then what about a floating brake. I had a 'B' model in '77 with a floating rear brake is it legal should be, now can I have the optional alloy swingarm with a floating brake should be able to, right. Now if I cut the brake lug off my optional alloy arm because I have a floating rear brake is that OK, well that would make it an awful lot like a 'C' model

Oh GOD that would not be legal, RIGHT

With respect, according to the MoMS, I do not have to prove that it was available for a 1977 model. It could be off a 76,75 model of any manufacturer, being aftermarket or factory.

All I have to prove is , Was an aluminium swingarm available for a Suzuki prior to 31/12/1977. Well it was. Rahier in 1976 and 1977 Gunter in 1977. There is absolutely no reference in the MoMS that says parts sales dockets need to be produced. There is also no limitation on who or where these parts are sourced. Not one reference to works, pre production parts being illegal. As long as there is proof of Suzuki racing bikes prior to 31/12/1977 wearing aluminium swingarms, as we all have seen in the pics of DeCoster, Rahier, Gunter and countless others it has to be legal to use a Suzuki optional aluminium swingarm made for a B model on a Pre 78. I have an original alloy B arm, not a modified C arm, which I will bring to scrutineering and point out the difference.

You state that early C models came out with the lug on them. My bet is they were left over optional B models arms that weren't sold due to the high price of them. From memory they wanted about 30% of the purchase price of the bike extra just for a swingarm.

Like I said we will have an answer on friday

Being for '75 or '76 would make it available for the '77 model Ted same as the sprocket for a '76 models is available for the '77 I did not say specific to the '77 model

I also bet the 'C' models with lugs are B arms but that could also prove they didn't sell em in '77 as they were still at the factory not at shops ready for 'C' models.

Please don't rely on that one picture of Gunter on a bike with an alloy arm as it also has a floating brake and could be a 'C' model with the 'B' alloy tank due to using 'fuel' or some other combination or could be testing parts from Japan (not legal) who knows unless you have documentation. If you think a picture of Rahier or DeCoster is going to sway it your way you may as well leave it on the trailer.

I wish you luck and I hope you have enough solid documentation if challenged and good luck at the meeting as well

[Ted]

Hey Bill, I am still waiting to hear back from the powers that be on how do they measure suspension travel. After asking two scrutineers I got two differing answers. Hence my email to officialdom.

It's only been a couple of months, maybe I'm being impatient.


These people care 2/5ths of fu..kall about classic motocross. Which was quite evident when it took the good people of Qld to step in to save these titles instead of MNSW getting it back on the rails.

Were MNSW told to get off their arses and organise a one day dirt track meet at Blayney on the same weekend as the titles because no other club would. Who would know.

[marshallmech]

And you wonder why people  bother !!!!!!

[Nathan S]

rule GCR 18.2.1.2.

Ted this is the only rule you need to satisfy same as you have been told several hundred times since you bought the bike. Almost everyone agrees that it makes SFA to the bikes performance. You just have to be able to prove that it was available for the 'B' model in 1977. Another several pages almost exactly the same as several pages early in the year. The problem is no one seems to be confident enough or actually have any evidence other than a parts book (which is specifically ruled out by the MOMS) that the alloy arms were ever actually sold or even available.

Without covering old ground the early 'C' models had the arm with the lug attached the original sales leaflets showed the lug on the swingarm. Surely one Suzuki dealer  or owner from the day will sign a Statutory Declaration. I hope that you can run the arm so this bloody thread does not keep coming up then what about a floating brake. I had a 'B' model in '77 with a floating rear brake is it legal should be, now can I have the optional alloy swingarm with a floating brake should be able to, right. Now if I cut the brake lug off my optional alloy arm because I have a floating rear brake is that OK, well that would make it an awful lot like a 'C' model

Oh GOD that would not be legal, RIGHT

With respect, according to the MoMS, I do not have to prove that it was available for a 1977 model. It could be off a 76,75 model of any manufacturer, being aftermarket or factory.

All I have to prove is , Was an aluminium swingarm available for a Suzuki prior to 31/12/1977. Well it was. Rahier in 1976 and 1977 Gunter in 1977. There is absolutely no reference in the MoMS that says parts sales dockets need to be produced. There is also no limitation on who or where these parts are sourced. Not one reference to works, pre production parts being illegal. As long as there is proof of Suzuki racing bikes prior to 31/12/1977 wearing aluminium swingarms, as we all have seen in the pics of DeCoster, Rahier, Gunter and countless others it has to be legal to use a Suzuki optional aluminium swingarm made for a B model on a Pre 78. I have an original alloy B arm, not a modified C arm, which I will bring to scrutineering and point out the difference.

You state that early C models came out with the lug on them. My bet is they were left over optional B models arms that weren't sold due to the high price of them. From memory they wanted about 30% of the purchase price of the bike extra just for a swingarm.

Like I said we will have an answer on friday

Being for '75 or '76 would make it available for the '77 model Ted same as the sprocket for a '76 models is available for the '77 I did not say specific to the '77 model

I also bet the 'C' models with lugs are B arms but that could also prove they didn't sell em in '77 as they were still at the factory not at shops ready for 'C' models.

Please don't rely on that one picture of Gunter on a bike with an alloy arm as it also has a floating brake and could be a 'C' model with the 'B' alloy tank due to using 'fuel' or some other combination or could be testing parts from Japan (not legal) who knows unless you have documentation. If you think a picture of Rahier or DeCoster is going to sway it your way you may as well leave it on the trailer.

I wish you luck and I hope you have enough solid documentation if challenged and good luck at the meeting as well

Where do the rules prohibit works parts?

[firko]

I am starting to wonder if any of them have ever viewed one

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.

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. 

[SON]

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.
[/quote]
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.

[Rossvickicampbell]

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

[Davey Crocket]

Jezus Ross, don't start another one.....we'll discuss it after the Nats......make sure you bring a brown paper bag full of money Ted....that's how we do it in QLD. .....lol.....actually 3....me, Vandy and Firko....and some doggie bickkies for Firko's dog. ...I've got the schnapps.

[huskibul]

    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