Magnesium

[KTM47]

What's happened with the rule book?
This is from my 09 book, it seems to have been removed from the current version
Why was this changed? Are my replica frames now not accepted with the current rules? WTF



Just spied a picture of a billet Maico backing plate, looked like a reasonably faithful replica to me (from what I could see of it)

I can see no reason why the replica rule would have been taken out of the book

I have just put another post up that also addresses this.  Geoff is right something like this needs to go back in.  And yes calling them a representation of a part makes sense, an exact replica of a magnesium hub will still have the same problem.

kdx 175 also makes a point.  Hubs and backing plates are different to clutch covers etc.  They are critical stressed parts and really need to be improved for safety.

Really we have two different types of machines.

1.  Restored bikes were everything is original

2.  Race bikes were we should permit slight improvements for safety.

CAMS recognises this with the Touring Car Masters. The cars have better brakes, gearbox and diffs etc.  They look like the cars from the period but are safer.

There is no way I will ever go back to the standard front brake backing plate on my 490 Maico.  There are enough examples of how dangerous the old ones have become.  I also can not afford to change back.

[HeavenVMX]

There were submission to include such clauses considered by the Commission this year but rejected.

Read the CMX/CDT commission minutes on the MA site.

Agree that the rules need an overal clause that defines
1) What is a replica (or representation)
2) What is a period after market item and how it is proven
3) What are the major components
4) What are minor items and indicate that they are restriction free (basically the rules in there literal reading don't allow modern handlebars etc, we all know they do)
5) What is a modification (the NSW RTA, called somthing else these days, considers window tint as a modification or fitting allow wheels to a car) eg is fitting one of those easy pull clutch levers a modification? I don't think so but the rules are mute on such things.

I know the usual characters will jump on every word of my post as usual but read the rules and try to define these things, I don't mean what you think or what 'we know is OK' but read what the rules say.

16.15.10.1 Acceptable for the pre 75 class are machines and components built up to and including the 1974 model. The only exception to this rule is where the model remains unaltered after this date.

Which components must be built in 1974 or before? Is that every component or just major components. I would think practically it means major components but for someone coming into the sport that seek clarrification from their club who may have a different take on it.

This is not having a go at the CMX/CDT Commission as I can imagine that the rules are a real pain to administer and the people involved would have a clear interpretation in their mind when drafting rule but the resulting rule needs to be clear to most people.

I am disappointed that the Commission seems most often to reject submissions without looking at them and consider using their own considerable experience to correct minor problems with submissions rather than just rejecting it outright because it has an unintended consequence.

I am not talking about submissions to the MA Board regarding recomendations, as the MA Board can not accept any rule submissions at this point they can only accept or reject the recommendations of the Commission. I am referring to submissions lodged before March each year to the Commissions for consideration.

[211]

There were submission to include such clauses considered by the Commission this year but rejected.

Read the CMX/CDT commission minutes on the MA site.

Agree that the rules need an overal clause that defines
1) What is a replica (or representation)
2) What is a period after market item and how it is proven
3) What are the major components
4) What are minor items and indicate that they are restriction free (basically the rules in there literal reading don't allow modern handlebars etc, we all know they do)
5) What is a modification (the NSW RTA, called somthing else these days, considers window tint as a modification or fitting allow wheels to a car) eg is fitting one of those easy pull clutch levers a modification? I don't think so but the rules are mute on such things.

I know the usual characters will jump on every word of my post as usual but read the rules and try to define these things, I don't mean what you think or what 'we know is OK' but read what the rules say.

16.15.10.1 Acceptable for the pre 75 class are machines and components built up to and including the 1974 model. The only exception to this rule is where the model remains unaltered after this date.

Which components must be built in 1974 or before? Is that every component or just major components. I would think practically it means major components but for someone coming into the sport that seek clarrification from their club who may have a different take on it.

This is not having a go at the CMX/CDT Commission as I can imagine that the rules are a real pain to administer and the people involved would have a clear interpretation in their mind when drafting rule but the resulting rule needs to be clear to most people.

I am disappointed that the Commission seems most often to reject submissions without looking at them and consider using their own considerable experience to correct minor problems with submissions rather than just rejecting it outright because it has an unintended consequence.

I am not talking about submissions to the MA Board regarding recomendations, as the MA Board can not accept any rule submissions at this point they can only accept or reject the recommendations of the Commission. I am referring to submissions lodged before March each year to the Commissions for consideration.

At the risk of another mess
1/ something that is a replica of the original part. not something made in a mill that replaces the part - however these is latitude given here and the Maico backing plate item is a good example. An example or a replica is a MCS plastics M5Y Rear guard that is an exact TM Suzuki replica.
2/ something like a DG head or alloy swing arm etc. Made in the period for the period.
3/ engine, wheels, frame - generally speaking.
4/ common sense prevails - if not we would be all still using Avon Scramble tyres and Doherty grips - its a leading question what's your point
5/ its VMX not a roadworthy.
Greg
 If everything proposed got up the book would be a telephone book so lets look at the question of what parts you feel should be replicas - post some images and lets look at it.
I have the submission in front of me, happy to discuss it in detail if you want to outline however the reference and any reference to the Evo class as noted in the submission will be ignored.

 

[HeavenVMX]

Thanks Dave I guess most people would assume all of those things you have listed and that was my assumption also. As I said this is not meant to take this thread into a mess as that does no one any good.

I just think that definitions of critical terms would make reading the rest of the rules much clearer and would remove almost all assumptions out of the equation.

I completely agree that every proposal cannot ‘get up’. It is just that it seems the objectives of some proposals appear to have merit but the proposal is either incomplete or badly worded and is rejected completely. Maybe the Commission cannot alter a proposal and that is the reason I am not sure.

As I said this is not meant to take a valid thread into another augment that benefits no one. My suggestion was trying to offer a possible solution as I think that the Maico backing plates are a glaring safety area and the billet backing plates offer a good solution. The rules are not clear if they are OK or not. If a definition of replica/representative part were in the rules no one would be in any doubt.

[kdx 175]

another thread  going to evo class AGAIN

[supersenior 50]

Greg, it's extremely difficult to cover all contingencies, and often the more rules one introduces to plug holes the more leaks get sprung elsewhere.
It gets complicated when individual vested interests come into play.
The biggest complication is we have hoomen beans involved.
It would be great to have clear definitions, but often if applied literally and acurately, create far greater problems than they avoid.
An example is some years ago, a beautifull bike was put together totally within the rules of the day, and a small number of people decided it wasn't kosher by their judgement. Every argument was dredged up by a vocal few, although the vast majority were happy about the bike. Letters were received by international riders of the day,and the current organiser of the class that included this bike who ran huge international meetings. The bike would be accepted at those big meetings, which we had in writing, but none of this evidence swayed the objectors. After having all the arguments answered suggesting by any fair reasoning the bike was kosher, they finally fell back on the definition of replica. I found three varying definitions in different dictionaries, two of which suggested a degree of flexibility but the third stated a replica was an EXACT FACSIMILE of the original. Guess which one was chosen. The bike disappeared for many years as it couldn't be proven the component was an EXACT to the nth degree copy under the chosen definition.
Sorry about the long winded story, but I think we need to be very carefull we dont create more problems than we cure.
The more definitions we introduce the less scope for common sence we have. Therein lies the dilemna.
At the end of the day, some official, committee, board or courtroom has to make a judgement call on something no matter how tight the rules.
There are some good suggestions being aired on here, but already we are seeing, hang  on if that happens my super doopa poopa scoopa might be in question; the billet safety component i just spent a fortune on isn't listed; etc etc. Some poor bastard or committee will have to rule on it using, guess what, common sence.

[KTM47]

Greg
You asked the question what are major components.  The Historic Road Race GCRs define them.

16.12.0.3 Major components are:
a) All engine and gearbox external castings,
b) Frames,
c) Swingarms,
d) Brakes,
e) Forks and fork yokes.
16.12.0.4 All other components shall be considered as minor components.



Kevin

[William Doe]

Common sense is no friend to a book of rules in my experience . You can have one or the other  or guidelines and common sense . As soon as you set out rules you have to accompany them with crystal clear definitions or you leave it wide open of missinterpretation, manipulation and exploitation from both competitors looking for an edge and officials with an axe to grind . Common sense is great when it suits  and what most of us were raised with in the pre PC world.

However nowadays if you want a set of rules you have to cover all bases,you cant get half pregnant .  Alternativley  have loose guidelines and self governance with no judicial system.

Its not a perfect world and at the end of the day we participate in a very minor part of a very minor global pastime ( motorsport ) and could it be we take ourselves to seriously 

I take the point that to make what seems a simple amendment for the greater good to a rule , can lead to a catastrophic  sequence of events further down the track.

[HeavenVMX]

Greg, it's extremely difficult to cover all contingencies, and often the more rules one introduces to plug holes the more leaks get sprung elsewhere.
It gets complicated when individual vested interests come into play.
The biggest complication is we have hoomen beans involved.
It would be great to have clear definitions, but often if applied literally and acurately, create far greater problems than they avoid.
An example is some years ago, a beautifull bike was put together totally within the rules of the day, and a small number of people decided it wasn't kosher by their judgement. Every argument was dredged up by a vocal few, although the vast majority were happy about the bike. Letters were received by international riders of the day,and the current organiser of the class that included this bike who ran huge international meetings. The bike would be accepted at those big meetings, which we had in writing, but none of this evidence swayed the objectors. After having all the arguments answered suggesting by any fair reasoning the bike was kosher, they finally fell back on the definition of replica. I found three varying definitions in different dictionaries, two of which suggested a degree of flexibility but the third stated a replica was an EXACT FACSIMILE of the original. Guess which one was chosen. The bike disappeared for many years as it couldn't be proven the component was an EXACT to the nth degree copy under the chosen definition.
Sorry about the long winded story, but I think we need to be very carefull we dont create more problems than we cure.
The more definitions we introduce the less scope for common sence we have. Therein lies the dilemna.
At the end of the day, some official, committee, board or courtroom has to make a judgement call on something no matter how tight the rules.
There are some good suggestions being aired on here, but already we are seeing, hang  on if that happens my super doopa poopa scoopa might be in question; the billet safety component i just spent a fortune on isn't listed; etc etc. Some poor bastard or committee will have to rule on it using, guess what, common sence.

Col, you can have many and varied definitions of a word. One definition of replica is a miniture scale exact duplicate or words to that effect.

That is why our rules should contain a (our) definition of important issues such as what is major component, what is a replica

Yes there will still be disputes, as you say human beings are involved. Trying to minimise the these disputes surely would be a good thing.

The reasoning that we may not be able to make the definition clauses absolutely perfect in every possible or conceivable situation or that someone may still find a way to protest does not seem to be a strong reason to avoid it completely. These definitions were in the rules in a fashion until 2009 from memory.

[HeavenVMX]

Greg
You asked the question what are major components.  The Historic Road Race GCRs define them.

16.12.0.3 Major components are:
a) All engine and gearbox external castings,
b) Frames,
c) Swingarms,
d) Brakes,
e) Forks and fork yokes.
16.12.0.4 All other components shall be considered as minor components.



Kevin

Yes I know.

Not commenting further as Graeme has asked this type of discussion, even though this one seems to be civil and productive, should be in the newly created area of the forum.

[KTM47]

Yes you are right.  Graeme said he would move threads if he thought they should be in the new section. Maybe it is time for it to move.

[211]

with an understanding of where HRR is at in Australia right now, please lets not travel that path as if you think there are issues in VMX flip over to HRR to see just how it can all go south.
There is always the reasonable person test. I accept that a reasonable person would consider a safety issue like the Maico brake thing as a given. Same goes for many things that are similar in nature. Considering what we can add to the rules to tighten it up forgets that by in large there are no problems - certainly by comparison to HRR (just my opinion). In my experience you say more with less words.
The text Kevin has added is verbatim to MNSW submission for CMX - only the numbers changed from HRR.
On another note - while not agreeing with the eligibility proposal MNSW put forward the age class for pre 85 as well as the alterations to the slider class both did. (MNSW Proposals) it now rests with the states to decide the outcomes.

[Nathan S]

If we are happy with "the vibe of the thing", then we should follow NZ's lead and ditch the rule book altogether.

Otherwise, we need rules that are clear, concise and understood.

[211]

on the replica thing as well. In the past the view of what a replica could be was determined by the radius of a frame bend or the angle of a guset. I would strongly argue that if we are going to define what replica means then we are going to head down a rocky road that hasn't considered history.
There is already an understanding that they don't make historic bikes anymore so if we are going to keep using them then things should be done - a good example is the flexibility given to frames in pre 60 and pre65 - this been done to encourage people to build a machine without being scared to death that someone would argue that in 1964 the frame had a lug here rather than there. Surprises me that GMC hasn't made a production Tribsa replica frame kit yet..........

[211]

If we are happy with "the vibe of the thing", then we should follow NZ's lead and ditch the rule book altogether.

Otherwise, we need rules that are clear, concise and understood.

I don't disagree however in my past experience in sailing where everything was so well defined you needed to take your lawyer into a protest with you - and some did.