concerning pipes that do not basically follow the original design

[Doc]

Rule book states 'Exhausts may be modified but must generally follow the original lines' could this infact mean a downpipe on an F11, DT, MT or a TS250 is technically a contentious issue? I have photo's from 1969 of a kitted TS250-1 and the factory kit pipe was indeed a downpipe exiting on the left unlike any TM that shoot out to the right. There were factory and aftermarket downpipes of the era available for near all models but they didn't follow the original lines. It might be paultry but the rules are rules if a protest arrises. Also for dirt track near all the front runners of the era used aftermarket downpipes so they were around in numbers back when. This rule just seems a little harsh if it's to be followed to the enth degree.

[mike1948]

The TS250 factory kits did vary.  I have a poor condition black & white photo of a TS250 I raced for the local dealer which had the race kit fitted, and it had a high pipe with much the same bend as the original stock pipe, an up pipe exiting on the right.  Not a bad bike on flat track, but totally inadequate geometry & suspension for anything else.

[vandy010]

Doc, i'd really like to think that any MA official that was to make a descion over a pipe protest would have enough brains to make the correct desicion. me personally, if it doesn't "follow" origional lines i couldn't give two hoots! as long as it was sympathetic to the era, but if it looks like a modern "fatty" pipe on a pre~75 bike, then perhaps there's be a case.
after all, the people that write these rules stem from a motorcycling background, not from a top flight lawer/legal background.

[bigk]

Hey Doc, have a read of the conflict along the same lines in the Husqvarna forum, under "Big k's CR400". There are some interesting points of view.
Cheers,
K

[mx250]

I don't know if there are any complete or correct answers. Everyone has an opinion, a different interpretation of the rules and history, and a different solution.  Ditto different clubs and controling bodies.

Although associated with other issues such as 'bling' chamber design is probably the most contentious.

Take Poison Lil (the bike ). The pipe faithfully follows the general line of the original. The numbers crunched to arrive at the shape and the technology to make the pipe, were all probaqbly available 'in the day'. But it's performance and appearance is discintly 'modern' to my eye. Although as you walked passed it or as it flashed passed, a spectator probably couldn't tell the difference (or care).

[firko]

If the rule "18.3.0.4 "Exhaust may be modified but must generally follow original lines." had been literally enforced over the last twenty years a fairly high percentage of bikes would never have made it through scrutineering and a right political furore would have emerged. As it is, the first time it's come to any sort of debate to my knowledge is Yammiefans criticisms of BigKs Circle F pipe on the Husky page.

If that rule had been literally enforced any DT1 or any trail based machine fitted with a downpipe, any Honda XL 4 stroke with a re-routed pipe and shorty muffler, any Triumph fitted with up pipes, any pre '78 Maico fitted with a Wheelsmith or Aaen Eng. up pipe, any CZ or OSSA fitted with a snail pipe or any of the hundred other similar cases would have to be declared ineligible to race. Australian VMX is in its 20th year and I must confess that I haven't seen many pipes that offend my sense of "spirit of the era" during that time. Sure I have seen a small number of overly fat pipes, usually fitted to highly modified dirt track Elsinores or Maicos but those type of pipes aren't suitable for motocross and aren't so common anyway.



In any case, when the rulebook was first formulated in the early nineties, I'm certain this rule didn't exist. My earliest copy of MOMS goes back to 1999 and it wasn't included then or for the next three issues. Because I'm no longer licenced and don't race any more I don't need a copy of MOMs so I haven't got any copies after 2003. Can anybody check their post 2003 issues to see when this rule was introduced please? I was one of the team that formulated the rules on which vintage MX and DT are governed and I remember that we were careful not to over regulate in a bid to make the whole process as simple as possible. Over the years various later commissions added and subtracted wording and paragraphs but many of the changes, such as 18.3.0.4 weren't needed in my opinion. The "spirit of the era" has always been the overriding "rule" used to determine right from wrong. It's worked for twenty years without any major problems so why now regulate on something that has never been a problem?

I own a NOS Suzuki TS250 race kit pipe and it's indeed a down pipe

[Freakshow]

I agree in the day you could have built it up or down, so who cares what it left the factory like its near irrelivent

You could have changed it to suit yourself in the day so why would that not apply now ? GEneral lines only applies to Frames i belive, the rest is up to the individual in Keeping with the "spirit of the Era ideal".  Its not like Down or up pipes where new technology pre 75 they had already discuvoured Chamber design so there is no technological advantage if you used one or the other, it personal and discipline specific.  Funny you say this casue i had some guy at a race meet tell me my Down pipe on my MXA didnt follow original lines, which i though was strange considering he was on a TM suzuki which had a under pipe, so if in the day it was invented as was displayed on his mount, i thought nothing more than saying it was a modified Elsie pipe and it was bought in 74, thus pre 75 legal.

[JC]

Mark,

Thats very good reasoning based on the original intent & the way its been applied over the years - precedent as the legal eagles would say. Thankfully it seems to have been interpreted that way most of the time over the years.

Trouble is, it doesn't really resolve it unfortunately, if you look strictly at what the wording of the rule actually says. At the end of the day & when all the heat dies down, it matters little/nothing what any of us on the forum says/thinks.

It only matters how the rule is interpreted by the officials on the day. And that I think is what Doc & EvoHusky are worried about when they raised it wrt a downpipe on the F11 & an up-pipe on the TNT250.

Spare a tho't also for any official placed in the position of having to hear a protest of such bikes according to what the rule actually states as it stands.

I hesitate to enter the 'debate' - & I most assuredly DON'T have any problem w BIgK's 400Husky pipe or Doc's downpipe or Mark's up-pipe - but the issue needs to be resolved, & good/healthy discussion is an appropriate means to that end.

To be fair to Yammiefan (elsewhere) I don't think he was being pedantic in drawing our attention to what the rule actually says. To my mind those pipes are all suitable to the era, but that's not what the rule actually states as the criterion.

Seems to me the problem is w the word "original" which actually misrepresents the intent of the rulemakers - quite blatantly. Even when qualified by "generaly follow original lines", while it could be argued either way for the 400husky pipe (at least its an up-pipe like the "original", but how generally does it follow the "original lines"?),  clearly a downpipe on an F11 & an up-pipe on a pre75 TNT250 do not follow "original" lines at all & so do not fit the rule as written, even tho such pipes were obviously around & used in the era (& I have no problem w them).

The crazy thing is, the pipe on "Poison Lil" (above) does "generally follow original lines" & so fits the rule, but is a much more modern fatty-pipe design (if you've seen a clearer pic of it) that is not era-sympathetic at all.

While we can argue about people being too pedantic/legalist in interpreting the rules, if its left the way it is, it is too ambiguous & (more importantly) it gives no security to people like Doc, BigK & EvoHusky when they rock up w their bike hoping to race it rather than have a protest upheld against it.

Seems to me what needs to be debated is a better wording which more accurately represents/states the era-sympathetic intent. Perhaps something like "Exhausts may be modified but must follow lines/designs of the era", or "must generally follow lines/designs of the era". Or just outlaw low-boy/fatty style pipes. You still have some interpretation problems. Perhaps drop the rule altogether!

A wise old legal eagle (who was a Justice of the Hi Court) once told me, the less words the better cos every word opens up problems of interpretation. Too true.

Anyway, its worth debating a rule change to accurately represent the correct criterion/intent. And lets do so, if I may so bold, with  light rather than heat.

[mx250]

i thought nothing more than saying it was a modified Elsie pipe and it was bought in 75, thus pre 75.

"I'll see you and raise you one"

[oldfart]

Definitions  as I understand them ,    so may to me is an option 
Shall = Mandatory
Should = is recomended
May   = is an option or permission by

[Tim754]

Shite how you going to apply this to sidecars!!! Except for the first 60mm at the manifold all four of pipes are totally different to the four individual set up of a CB750, just about eliminates all outfits as how many you ever seen follow even "generally" the factory lines?

[mike1948]

Sidecar outfits usually consist of a frame kit, then a range of individual components added by the owner, many of which are home made, and not sold in complete form.  These rules are designed to apply to bikes sold complete.  I'm sure your pipes are OK, no matter how much like spaghetti they look.  In your case, it's probably frame kit & engine which must meet age & design eligibility.   

[Lozza]

If you have proof that a modification was used in the day then it be legal.The whole thing is a non issue, build the pipe Doc.Active protesters have to part with $50 before it's heard.

[Doc]

I didn't realize it would raise the storm it did and I'll have to go look at the other posts and read them but my main concern is as JC states, at the end of the day the bottom line written there in black and white is the rule book generally follow original lines. I wasn't thinking but Loz also mentioned the countless post '76 RM's, CR's, YZ's and many others that ran downpipes for dirt track. I personally think the rule needs changing to exclude fatty pipes and such yes but I don't feel there can or should be any contraints on whether it's up or down, this goes for all classes not just pre'75 as it's always been an available aftermarket option or sometime factory part for near any model you care to think of.

[GMC]

I think the rules intention was to stop too much modernising of exhausts that would change the era-sympathetic look, but it's this sort of thing that is the hardest to write a rule for. I feel any proof of "available in the day" would overwrite this anyway.
"Poison Lil" I don't mind too much but I have seen bikes with modern pipes made to fit which I feel do look wrong. I also find it odd that a lot of guys that supposedly race for fun seem so concerened about being protested over something trivial???
Trying to write a rule that banned so called Fatty pipes would probably sink from loopholes too. At what point does it become "fatty". Their is allready a natural rule for this because too fat can become detrimental to the performance.
On a personal level, I'm not sure how my pipes would stack up to any so called Fat rule, but with 50 or more jigs for various models I'm not about to start redesigning pipes & jigs all over again so would proabably just sell them for export.