Author Topic: Rear sprocket guard.  (Read 20581 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SlideRulz

  • A-Grade
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
  • Not anti social just anti idiot.
    • View Profile
Re: Rear sprocket guard.
« Reply #30 on: August 30, 2014, 11:39:01 am »
Round and round we go, anything that increases my chances of turning up for work on Mondy is fine by me. ???

Offline Ted

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2800
    • View Profile
Re: Rear sprocket guard.
« Reply #31 on: August 30, 2014, 12:00:17 pm »
its not selective anything; to the observant you would have noticed that CMX was exempt for a couple of years while the Commission sort to define what it was that we would have to be compliant to. It was decided (and I agreed at that point to add to the GCRs) that if a bike came from the factory with a chain guide that was fitted to the swing arm such as a CR or a TM125 then it would be acceptable. If as in the case of the Husky it wasn't (on torque arm)then something will have to be added. If a bike had nothing then it would have to have something - my AJS is a classic case.
That someone out there decided that it should look like half the stuff I saw on the weekend isn't my problem, some guys did a great job but others with nothing (and there were quite a few) were asked to do something about it.

211

Dave, I can't find any reference in the GCR's stating that a chain guide has to be mounted to the swing arm. It only says " In a way to prevent"

I also cannot find any reference as to " If a bike came from the factory with a chain guide halfway down the swingarm ( eg CR 125 ) it would be acceptable

Could you please point me to where these are written?

The rule simply says " in a way to PREVENT trapping  " Having 6 inches of nothing between the guard and sprocket is hardly prevention.

I agree with this prevention rule if it is done to the letter of the law.


81 YZ 465 H   77 RM 125 B

oldfart

  • Guest
Re: Rear sprocket guard.
« Reply #32 on: August 30, 2014, 12:48:01 pm »
Ted ... Ice cream lids and zip ties come to mind  ;)

Offline KTM47

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
    • View Profile
Re: Rear sprocket guard.
« Reply #33 on: August 30, 2014, 01:10:45 pm »
If anyone still has a copy of last year's MOMS (2013) on page 101 there is an add for a rear chain guard that, it would appear was acceptable for Road Racing.  The wording of the rule is the same in the Road Race section So!!!!

I think everyone knows that if you drive your car less or park it under cover your insurance can be cheaper because you reduce the risk.

What is the difference here.  Fitting a guard reduces a risk. 
MAICOS RULE DESPITE THE FOOLS

1999 KTM 200, 1976/77 KTM 400,1981 Maico 490

Offline VMX247

  • Megastar
  • *******
  • Posts: 8766
  • Western Australia
    • View Profile
Re: Rear sprocket guard.
« Reply #34 on: August 30, 2014, 01:24:28 pm »
On behalf of steven.how does your interperation of the rule ie crv/tm being suitable meet with the complance requirement of preventing traping ?
Best is in the West !!

Offline William Doe

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 570
    • View Profile
Re: Rear sprocket guard.
« Reply #35 on: August 30, 2014, 01:29:47 pm »
Ted ... Ice cream lids and zip ties come to mind  ;)

Exactly , how the hell can that prevent anything other that the ice cream now melting  ::)

If there is going to be a rule then surely it would have to have a std  ??? I can see an ice cream lid offering all the protection of a G string against a Tiger attack  ::)
Its only old bike racing FFS get over yourselves





The Artist formerly known as TM Bill

Offline William Doe

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 570
    • View Profile
Re: Rear sprocket guard.
« Reply #36 on: August 30, 2014, 01:34:25 pm »
Round and round we go, anything that increases my chances of turning up for work on Monday is fine by me. ???

Fair enough but why impose it on everybody else  ??? Nothing stopping you from wrapping yourself in cotton wool , or making sure your fit for work Monday by staying home and watching it on telly from the safety of your couch , whatever makes you happy  ;)

But this is where the world in general falls over , people expect EVERYONE else to change the ways they do things to suit the noisy minority  ::)

Its only old bike racing FFS get over yourselves





The Artist formerly known as TM Bill

Offline 211

  • A-Grade
  • ****
  • Posts: 340
    • View Profile
Re: Rear sprocket guard.
« Reply #37 on: August 30, 2014, 01:37:05 pm »
If anyone still has a copy of last year's MOMS (2013) on page 101 there is an add for a rear chain guard that, it would appear was acceptable for Road Racing.  The wording of the rule is the same in the Road Race section So!!!!

I think everyone knows that if you drive your car less or park it under cover your insurance can be cheaper because you reduce the risk.

What is the difference here.  Fitting a guard reduces a risk.
Yep
and CMX/CDT is exempt = other than CMX/CDT is I believe what it says

Offline 211

  • A-Grade
  • ****
  • Posts: 340
    • View Profile
Re: Rear sprocket guard.
« Reply #38 on: August 30, 2014, 01:43:22 pm »
its not selective anything; to the observant you would have noticed that CMX was exempt for a couple of years while the Commission sort to define what it was that we would have to be compliant to. It was decided (and I agreed at that point to add to the GCRs) that if a bike came from the factory with a chain guide that was fitted to the swing arm such as a CR or a TM125 then it would be acceptable. If as in the case of the Husky it wasn't (on torque arm)then something will have to be added. If a bike had nothing then it would have to have something - my AJS is a classic case.
That someone out there decided that it should look like half the stuff I saw on the weekend isn't my problem, some guys did a great job but others with nothing (and there were quite a few) were asked to do something about it.

211

Dave, I can't find any reference in the GCR's stating that a chain guide has to be mounted to the swing arm. It only says " In a way to prevent"

I also cannot find any reference as to " If a bike came from the factory with a chain guide halfway down the swingarm ( eg CR 125 ) it would be acceptable

Could you please point me to where these are written?

The rule simply says " in a way to PREVENT trapping  " Having 6 inches of nothing between the guard and sprocket is hardly prevention.

I agree with this prevention rule if it is done to the letter of the law.
Ted
suggest you write a clarification of exactly what you think everyone should do, once you have it send it to MA and get it in the rule book. Right now it is what it is.
In my 40 years in the sport I've never seen it as a problem however I've seen plenty more rate more attention.
What I should do is a post with all the crap I see in scrutineering that is prevented from getting on the track. Now that's some serious safety matters.
DT

Offline SlideRulz

  • A-Grade
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
  • Not anti social just anti idiot.
    • View Profile
Re: Rear sprocket guard.
« Reply #39 on: August 30, 2014, 01:52:02 pm »
I didn't single anyone out William and just as you are, I'm only voicing my opinion.
You've made a lot more noise than me so does that put you in the noisy minority?

Offline William Doe

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 570
    • View Profile
Re: Rear sprocket guard.
« Reply #40 on: August 30, 2014, 03:01:44 pm »
I didn't single anyone out William and just as you are, I'm only voicing my opinion.
You've made a lot more noise than me so does that put you in the noisy minority?

If you like  ;) Like I sat whatever makes you happy  :)
Its only old bike racing FFS get over yourselves





The Artist formerly known as TM Bill

Offline pancho

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2375
    • View Profile
Re: Rear sprocket guard.
« Reply #41 on: August 30, 2014, 03:42:33 pm »
I put a "fin" on the lower chain run on both my bikes as soon as the risk was brought to my attention.
 I heared about the passer by at Nepean who hastily helped a bloke having difficulty unloading his bike, losing a finger in the back sprocket.
 I put a chain guard on the upper run of my back chain on my slider when the joiner unclipped resulting in the chain flicked UP and whipped me on the bum! I have never seen a chain flick UP before, but it wasn't gunna get me twice!.
 I'm also reminded that there is not much chance of me losing fingers in some-ones uncovered primary chain which was the norm in "the good ol' days",
 And the modern generation on their new road machines don't have things designed to rip their nuts off as the slide up the fuel tank of their Triumph TBird over the tank rack and then the steering damper knob!
 COMMON SENSE I say!
« Last Edit: August 30, 2014, 03:44:28 pm by pancho »
dont follow me i'm probably off line!

Offline 211

  • A-Grade
  • ****
  • Posts: 340
    • View Profile
Re: Rear sprocket guard.
« Reply #42 on: August 30, 2014, 05:57:14 pm »
On behalf of steven.how does your interperation of the rule ie crv/tm being suitable meet with the complance requirement of preventing traping ?
I just did. Im happy for you to create something that everyone understands and put it up for inclusion in the book. For me I held off until such time as I was sure that we were all not going to make our bikes look like an Agg bike. Really in the greater scheme of things I could put a shark fin on my swing arm and be 100% compliant while really making sure that my fingers were directed thru the sprocket. That's the alternative.
More fingers are lost loading bikes on a ute than on the track and if that's true then we should all have guards on the top of the sprocket not the bottom.
We let guys ride with a half face helmet and little else - I know what I would be more concerned about.


Offline Ted

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2800
    • View Profile
Re: Rear sprocket guard.
« Reply #43 on: August 30, 2014, 07:48:36 pm »
its not selective anything; to the observant you would have noticed that CMX was exempt for a couple of years while the Commission sort to define what it was that we would have to be compliant to. It was decided (and I agreed at that point to add to the GCRs) that if a bike came from the factory with a chain guide that was fitted to the swing arm such as a CR or a TM125 then it would be acceptable. If as in the case of the Husky it wasn't (on torque arm)then something will have to be added. If a bike had nothing then it would have to have something - my AJS is a classic case.
That someone out there decided that it should look like half the stuff I saw on the weekend isn't my problem, some guys did a great job but others with nothing (and there were quite a few) were asked to do something about it.

211

Dave, I can't find any reference in the GCR's stating that a chain guide has to be mounted to the swing arm. It only says " In a way to prevent"

I also cannot find any reference as to " If a bike came from the factory with a chain guide halfway down the swingarm ( eg CR 125 ) it would be acceptable

Could you please point me to where these are written?

The rule simply says " in a way to PREVENT trapping  " Having 6 inches of nothing between the guard and sprocket is hardly prevention.

I agree with this prevention rule if it is done to the letter of the law.
Ted
suggest you write a clarification of exactly what you think everyone should do, once you have it send it to MA and get it in the rule book. Right now it is what it is.
In my 40 years in the sport I've never seen it as a problem however I've seen plenty more rate more attention.
What I should do is a post with all the crap I see in scrutineering that is prevented from getting on the track. Now that's some serious safety matters.
DT

Dave
        The wording as it is written is perfect. " Prevent trapping " is spot on.

The enforcement is the issue.
81 YZ 465 H   77 RM 125 B

Offline KTM47

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
    • View Profile
Re: Rear sprocket guard.
« Reply #44 on: August 30, 2014, 09:10:08 pm »
If anyone still has a copy of last year's MOMS (2013) on page 101 there is an add for a rear chain guard that, it would appear was acceptable for Road Racing.  The wording of the rule is the same in the Road Race section So!!!!

I think everyone knows that if you drive your car less or park it under cover your insurance can be cheaper because you reduce the risk.

What is the difference here.  Fitting a guard reduces a risk.


Yep
and CMX/CDT is exempt = other than CMX/CDT is I believe what it says

Yes that is what it said in 2013, but that is not the case now.

The reason I mentioned the 2013 MOMS is because it has a picture of what is acceptable for a rear chain guard.
MAICOS RULE DESPITE THE FOOLS

1999 KTM 200, 1976/77 KTM 400,1981 Maico 490