Cheney vs Rickman handling differences

[Michael Moore]

I did some searching and couldn't find anything on this topic.

Rickmans seemed to be much more commonly raced in the 60s/early 70s than Cheneys, yet Cheneys appear to be more popular for modern VMX.  Why is that?  Does a Cheney handle significantly better than a Rickman?

I address the question to bikes of the period.  It sounds like it is possible to get a Cheney that has been modernized somewhat, and it may be that subtle improvements would convey an advantage.

cheers,
Michael

[FourstrokeForever]

I like the Cheney because there is more room for my lanky legs. Both the Cheney and the Rickman are great turning and handling bikes for what they are. If only Rickmans weren't so cramped.....

[Michael Moore]

I always had the impression that the Rickman brothers were tall and lanky so I figured the bikes would fit that body type.  Maybe it was just that they were slim and looked taller.

I remember seeing advice that when deciding on what bike to buy you look at the rider who developed it and try to find one who is a match for your own physique.

cheers,
Michael

[FourstrokeForever]

I think the Rickman brothers were tall and lanky. I'm not lanky. I'm big and tall.

I don't think any of the manufacturers thought much about ergonomics in the 60's and 70's. John Banks was a big bloke and even the CCM's and Cheney's are a ergonomically challenged bike. Especially the CCM with the footpegs mounted high up on the engine cases.
I actually lowered the footpegs on my B50 and built a much taller seat. That, with a set of tall handle bars means I fit on the bike much better and feel heaps more confident on it.