What flatslides are legal for Pre 85?

[matcho mick]

geezas,13 pages to draw a line in the sand/rocks/mud whatever,fugging awesome
ps i wont get invited to KTM afterparty drinki poos no time soon either 

[bigk]

Your post makes it 14 pages Mick. This is the problem, John Orchard asked a simple question which should have a simple answer, yet 14 pages of discussion shows different.
K

[FourstrokeForever]

16.15.13.1 Acceptable for the pre 85 class are machines and components built up to and including the 1984 model. The only exception to this rule is where the model remains unaltered after this date.

Note it says machines and components built up to and including the 1984 model

So while the kiehin PJ flat slide may have been available as a spare part it would be for the 1985 model bike, so not legal.

However if kiehin had it available for sale (other than a Honda spare part).  Maybe and that is a big maybe it could be considered legal, but that would be up to MA.

Fair enough Kevin. You (by stating the rule book) have outlined quiet clearly that a component produced in 1984 BUT is manufactured for a 1985 MODEL bike is ineligible.

Looks like any rear shock, fork internals, pro taper bars, unbreakable levers etc, all of which are OBVIOUSLY manufactured AFTER 30/12/1984, can be deemed as  ineligible as well then.....

Question is, how far do we want to take the eligibility rulings?   

[sleepy]

No one has posted this line out of the rules yet. It overrides 16.15.13.1 .
16.15.13.2
Carburettors; period flat slide carburettors and any round slide carburettor may be used.

My interetation would be if you could get a Carb from anysource in 1984, even as a spare part it is a period carb. It doesn't have to be from a bike sold as an 84 model.

[Momus]

16.15.13.1 Acceptable for the pre 85 class are machines and components built up to and including the 1984 model. The only exception to this rule is where the model remains unaltered after this date.

Note it says machines and components built up to and including the 1984 model

So while the kiehin PJ flat slide may have been available as a spare part it would be for the 1985 model bike, so not legal.

The key of the argument I made is that the readily available flat slide Keihins are the same model carb as the RC500 carby; in effect a works part. The rules, and precedent, allow the use of works parts, indeed complete bikes.

The fact that the '85 model CR250 carbies were  readily available in 1984 as a spare part provides more evidence of their use and availability in the era.

MA may be well aware of this.

Keihin flat slide carbs have been used at National meetings without fuss on Pre85 bikes for many years.

[sleepy]

16.15.13.1 Acceptable for the pre 85 class are machines and components built up to and including the 1984 model. The only exception to this rule is where the model remains unaltered after this date.

Note it says machines and components built up to and including the 1984 model

So while the kiehin PJ flat slide may have been available as a spare part it would be for the 1985 model bike, so not legal.

The key of the argument I made is that the readily available flat slide Keihins are the same model carb as the RC500 carby; in effect a works part. The rules, and precedent, allow the use of works parts, indeed complete bikes.

The fact that the '85 model CR250 carbies were  readily available in 1984 as a spare part provides more evidence of their use and availability in the era.

MA may be well aware of this.

Keihin flat slide carbs have been used at National meetings without fuss on Pre85 bikes for many years.

i'd agree.

All the against are quoting rule 16.15.13.1 which in the case of a Carb doesn't apply as there is rule 16.15.13.2 which covers Carbs.

[KTM47]

Question or protest a bike at any time, just because its been through the line up doesnt means its got a cloak of protection over it...
the line up is the first pass, and is normally a place to pick the obvious anomaly or class entry issues , but it can be questioned at any time on the line, in the pits, on the finish line, our in a formal protest with Fee for a determination.

If your cheating its a matter of when and hopefully it will get picked up before the places are made offical.

Freaky I do not agree with you and myself and three other level four officials have the same opinion.

If a rider has presented his bike in good faith and it passes Eligibility Scrutineering he or she should have a reasonable expectation, that if he or she doesn't change the bike it shouldn't be protested for eligibility.  However everyone is human (including MA Officials) so if a rider thinks an official has made the wrong decision, a rider or entrant has got the right to protest the decision of the official.  However there is time limits for protests, but a Steward could wave that time limit in exceptional circumstances.

Momus  No one has established that the keihin PJ (production model) was available in 1984 (even as a spare part).

Sleepy  16.15.13.2  Carburettors; period flat slide carburettors and any round slide carburettor may be used.

The period for Pre 85 is (Pre 85)  so we are back to 16.15.13.1.

The real problem is that riders have been stretching the rules for a long time now.  There are even things on my own bike that if the rules were enforced as written may not conform.  The rules need some leeway written in, but that can't happen straight away.

John Orchard asked a question and I think it has been answered.

[bigk]

I agree there is a need for rules, but sensible rules, not draconian. Maybe the current rules are fine (if a bit tight), but how does any commissioner, scrutineer, official or anyone deal with the multitude of differing opinions as shown just here, especially from those who want to talk just to show how "knowledgeable" they are?
It's amateur VMX. It's supposed to be fun. Any rule changes or clarification should be in the interest of making compliance simpler & easier, not the opposite as a noisy few on here promote. More rules or tougher rules will not help, on the contrary, it will be the end of VMX as we know it. If the pundits want to make it their own boys club, then keep on with it, you'll probably get there in the end. Condemn blatant cheating, but embrace common sense.
K

[LWC82PE]

Looks like any rear shock, fork internals, pro taper bars, unbreakable levers etc, all of which are OBVIOUSLY manufactured AFTER 30/12/1984, can be deemed as  ineligible as well then.....

Question is, how far do we want to take the eligibility rulings?   

You gotta remember, that VMX is generally about 'recreating the period' or what ever you want to call it, there are some things that are allowed that were not available back then and somethings that were available that are not allowed now. Its just the way it is as it is impossible to recreate everything exactly how it was.

2 examples of things that are of the correct period that are not allowed are aftermarket watercooled heads in pre78/evo and original travel on certain bikes eg 77 Husky as mentioned above. They are 2 things that although 'period correct', are not allowed in todays racing.

Some things that are allowed today that were not available back then are for example wide pegs, fancy high tech shocks and cartridge emulators in forks among others.

You need to look at parts in 3 categories

1 - OEM parts
2 - aftermarket parts/accessories (usually performance enhancing major components)
3 - consumables (can be OEM or aftermarket)

The Keihin flat slide fits into category 1 (OEM parts) and is a major component from a 1985 model. There has to be a line in the sand and if you were to allow this carby or any other major component from a 1985 model bike you would have to allow every single 1985 model bike into pre 85. Its never going to happen. The rule is there to stop OEM major components being used from 1985 models.

Category 2 (aftermarket parts) any can be used if it can be proved that they were available up to the cut off. In this case 31/12/84. The reason being is that they are not major OEM components from/for a 1985 model bike.

Category 3 (consumables) are like others have said 'free' so you can use what you want. You could even use OEM Honda grips or a clutch cable intended for a 1985 model. Now some may say why are those allowed if they are for a 85 bike but not the carby or forks etc. Well the grips, cables, bars etc fall into 'consumables' so can come from anywhere.

To simplify it even more....

for pre 85 you can use

1- Any 1984 model or older bike/part of bike.
2 - Any after market part that is not already considered a consumable and automatically allowed, if there's proof it was available for purchase up to 31/12/84 (for the Kehine flat slide to be considered legal for pre 85 it would need to fit this requirement as it currently does not meet point 1. above)
3 - Any part from any period/bike that is considered a consumable, although its my personal option that you should try and keep your bike looking correct period where possible so this is where i have a disliking to fat bars but if people want to use them that's their choice.

So really the whole 31/12/84 cut off only relates to aftermarket parts that are not considered consumables.

It's all really simple when you break it down like that.

This is how i understand it, its really easy to follow i think.

Another point, scruitineers are not perfect and can not be expected to know every single little allowable/non allowable thing on  a bike/in a class. Sometimes they may make a mistake or oversee something and this is how something may have slipped through in the past when it probably should not have.

[shelpi]

give me a std Vm and modern sockers in my age group and Im happy as a pig in shit, proved it plenty of times get the damn thing handleing it beats check book raceing (hot donk) everytime.
There is plenty of crap done inside that we cant see and its ok under the stock appearing rule.
hmm Ive got a Tm and look in the sudco book I can buy a after market TM power jet kit for more mid range oh ow what have i done

[FourstrokeForever]

I agree there is a need for rules, but sensible rules, not draconian. Maybe the current rules are fine (if a bit tight), but how does any commissioner, scrutineer, official or anyone deal with the multitude of differing opinions as shown just here, especially from those who want to talk just to show how "knowledgeable" they are?
It's amateur VMX. It's supposed to be fun. Any rule changes or clarification should be in the interest of making compliance simpler & easier, not the opposite as a noisy few on here promote. More rules or tougher rules will not help, on the contrary, it will be the end of VMX as we know it. If the pundits want to make it their own boys club, then keep on with it, you'll probably get there in the end. Condemn blatant cheating, but embrace common sense.
K

You summed up exactly what I am trying to put across Mick.

Sure, If someone is attempting to blatantly fit a PWK carb, that would be un kosher IMHO. However, A PJ flatslide is basically no different to any other flatslide of the era, other than a Lectron which was light years better. The gurus have said the PJ is a crap carby.... so why the fuss?
The PJ Kiehin WAS available prior to the cut of date for pre 85 so I would strenuously submit that if anyone was to protest against it.

As for "fat bars", they are a performance advantage because they are proven to reduce vibration, hence less fatigue on the rider. Ban them.
Same for unbreakable levers. They weren't available in the era and are a performance advantage IMO. If you drop the bike, they don't bend or break, unlike the levers of the day. Ban them too.
Personally, I don't give two tosses of a flying fluck what gets run on a bike, BUT, if someone were to lodge a protest on a pre85 bike of mine that had a PJ flatslide Kiehin on it, then I would repay the favour by doing the same in return.
Where will it ever end?

[shelpi]

I agree there is a need for rules, but sensible rules, not draconian. Maybe the current rules are fine (if a bit tight), but how does any commissioner, scrutineer, official or anyone deal with the multitude of differing opinions as shown just here, especially from those who want to talk just to show how "knowledgeable" they are?
It's amateur VMX. It's supposed to be fun. Any rule changes or clarification should be in the interest of making compliance simpler & easier, not the opposite as a noisy few on here promote. More rules or tougher rules will not help, on the contrary, it will be the end of VMX as we know it. If the pundits want to make it their own boys club, then keep on with it, you'll probably get there in the end. Condemn blatant cheating, but embrace common sense.
K

You summed up exactly what I am trying to put across Mick.

Sure, If someone is attempting to blatantly fit a PWK carb, that would be un kosher IMHO. However, A PJ flatslide is basically no different to any other flatslide of the era, other than a Lectron which was light years better. The gurus have said the PJ is a crap carby.... so why the fuss?
The PJ Kiehin WAS available prior to the cut of date for pre 85 so I would strenuously submit that if anyone was to protest against it.

As for "fat bars", they are a performance advantage because they are proven to reduce vibration, hence less fatigue on the rider. Ban them.
Same for unbreakable levers. They weren't available in the era and are a performance advantage IMO. If you drop the bike, they don't bend or break, unlike the levers of the day. Ban them too.
Personally, I don't give two tosses of a flying fluck what gets run on a bike, BUT, if someone were to lodge a protest on a pre85 bike of mine that had a PJ flatslide Kiehin on it, then I would repay the favour by doing the same in return.
Where will it ever end?

here here, so then, we will be able to make a pre85 frame that's identical but made in 2015  identical components would count as flow on     right?

[Nathan S]

An identical frame does not have a technological or performance improvement, and is legal.

If anyone can prove that the PJ was available as a 1984 model part, then it is legal, simple as that. Until then, it is not legal.

Personally, I hate fatbars on VMX bikes. They ARE a performance improvement, and are visually incompatible. Like unbreakable levers, they have never been outlawed because they are considered a consumable part, and because it is difficult to write an enforceable rule to prohibit them.

[bigk]

Here's a thought, has anyone considered the rules are written a bit "grey" deliberately to actually allow a bit of sway?
As for a new frame, although identical being legal, there is one of the paradoxes.
K

[Nathan S]

Here's a thought, has anyone considered the rules are written a bit "grey" deliberately to actually allow a bit of sway?
As for a new frame, although identical being legal, there is one of the paradoxes.
K

Yes. This is a noble goal, but doomed to failure because it just creates uncertainty.

People want to be able to build their bikes to be as fast and as legal as possible. Nobody wants the stress of not knowing if they'll be protested, but nor do they want to give away a possible performance opportunity.
When the rules are grey, it leaves too much up to the Scrutineer on the day: is your bike that's sailed though a dozen Nationals going to be sent home this time because the chief Scrutineer has a bee in his bonnet over a particular rule? Are you going to line up against an illegal bike because the chief Scrutineer is a mate of his? Are you going to race all weekend and then be excluded on protest because the Scrutineer was lenient to get you out there racing?

Grey rules create stress, and a negative for any sport.
Have a look at this forum: 99.859% of the agro is about the rules.

When the rules are clear and easily understood, then competitors can roll up to scrutiny with confidence. Clear rules also take a lot of pressure off scrutineers, stewards and even this forum.