Ohlins upside down forks

[JohnnyO]

If the rules sought to prohibit works bikes, then the rules would seek to prohibit works bikes.

So rather than throwing rocks, show me where the rules disagree with me.

The problem you have (and keep having), is that you're working off what you think/assume the rules are about, and not what the rules actually say.

I didn't say the rules prohibit works bikes I said they weren't structured around them. Read my post again..
A 74 works bike had 8" suspension travel front and rear and box section alloy swingarm. Where does that fit in with our pre 75 rules?
Alan Tomkins had a 76 SR 250 and SR400 in the early to mid 90's when vintage racing only had pre 75 and earlier so how did the rules cater for his bikes?
I'm not against works bikes racing, I love the things it's just I don't agree the rules allow the use of certain parts that appeared on works bikes but we're unavailable to be purchased at that time. Otherwise I'd build a 74 TM400 with a big chunky box section alloy swingarm, laid down shocks and 38mm leading axle  forks..but how far would I get at scrutineering?

[Nathan S]

The extra travel of the pre-75 works bikes is dealt with by having a specific limit on suspension travel.
Fits perfectly.

Your tricked up 74 model would breeze through scrutiny if you made it from Pre-75 parts. If you used post-74 parts, then you have an obvious problem.

I am against modern, chunky alloy swingarms on old bikes. But if they're a pre-75 part (or are a replica of a pre-75 part) then they are sweet.

[KTM47]

The extra travel of the pre-75 works bikes is dealt with by having a specific limit on suspension travel.
Fits perfectly.

Your tricked up 74 model would breeze through scrutiny if you made it from Pre-75 parts. If you used post-74 parts, then you have an obvious problem.

I am against modern, chunky alloy swingarms on old bikes. But if they're a pre-75 part (or are a replica of a pre-75 part) then they are sweet.

I'm with John.  What are you smoking Nathan???

I'm sure if you fronted with a bike like John described you would not breeze through scrutineering.  Even if you had documents (that in your opinion) proved the parts were available before 31st Dec 1974.  It would depend on whether or not the scrutineer excepted that alleged proof.

So please make the bike so we can say I told you so.

[KTM47]

So this isn't a favorite then?? 


Actually the bike isn't ridden, I had a NOS Öhlins kit for 99 Honda, so I put it on here just for the cool looks. Not pre 89 at all...

Great looking bike ola_martin.  But even you admit it isn't Pre 90 legal.

The point of the thread has been proved these forks aren't legal for Pre 90.

[Nathan S]

The extra travel of the pre-75 works bikes is dealt with by having a specific limit on suspension travel.
Fits perfectly.

Your tricked up 74 model would breeze through scrutiny if you made it from Pre-75 parts. If you used post-74 parts, then you have an obvious problem.

I am against modern, chunky alloy swingarms on old bikes. But if they're a pre-75 part (or are a replica of a pre-75 part) then they are sweet.

I'm with John.  What are you smoking Nathan???

I'm sure if you fronted with a bike like John described you would not breeze through scrutineering.  Even if you had documents (that in your opinion) proved the parts were available before 31st Dec 1974.  It would depend on whether or not the scrutineer excepted that alleged proof.

So please make the bike so we can say I told you so.

I'm just going on what the rules say.

If John's bike was made from 1974 model bits, then it doesn't matter if they came from a production MX bike, a works MX bike, a road bike, a speedway bike or any other sort of bike - its legal.

If they came from a 1975 model bike (that isn't a carry-over bike/part), then the bike is illegal because it has major components from an illegal bike - and the "works bike" stuff is irrelevant.