concerning pipes that do not basically follow the original design

[TC91]

Too many rules equals too many hassells.7 inches front, 4 inches rear and era applicable appearance. 3 rules should be all that is needed for pre 75 for example. You will never be able to legislate against people fitting fatty pipes, digital ignitions, coated pistons etc but these should be discouraged strongly as being against the spirit of the sport. If a rider needs to win that bad as my younger brother would say ' I will buy you a trophy and the rest of us will get on with enjoying our racing '. Sure I can get very competitive and tune my bikes as well as I can but I also believe in racing era specific bikes. Instead of a fatty pipe,new tyres and efficient brakes and suspension may work a lot better or better still just go out and ride the wheels off the thing and enjoy it for what it is!

[Tim754]

Mike, I was being very "tongue in cheek" with my sidecar bit, But big thanks for responding I do appreciate your interest for sure. Cheers Tim.

[Doc]

'Too many rules equals too many hassels'

TC91, I totally agree!

'I also find it odd that a lot of guys that supposedly race for fun seem so concerened about being protested over something trivial???'

Geoff, I as well as countless others do just race for fun but by some weird happening if I/they ever found my/themselves at the pointy end it'd be wrong to be denied because of a rule book technicality. Not so much protests from the older 'mature' entusiasts but what's to stop a young guy protesting at a titles event? He doesn't care how many old buggers he offends he's there to win not make friends. My point being the rule is not specific to snuff out these foolish protests if they hypothetically did happen plus also in my personal view is it is a little easier to build and personalize a bike whilst staying well within 'era' if said rule allows an 'era' or 'era replica' up or downpipe

[mx250]

Hey Doc, I don't think there is an answer; maybe good better and best, but no answer.

Just stuck it and see. Play hard, ride hard and enjoy. Cross that particual bridge if and when you come to it.

[GMC]

Geoff, I as well as countless others do just race for fun but by some weird happening if I/they ever found my/themselves at the pointy end it'd be wrong to be denied because of a rule book technicality.

Too true Doc, it just seems to me, and maybe I've led a sheltered life, that the last few years on this forum have brought up more double meanings to rule book paragraphs that I've ever heard in my whole life. The OEM statement has been in the book for years but has only recently been questioned. I don't doubt that some stupid protests have been lodged but it also seems that some worry too much.
No doubt their are a few rules that need better defining, & this forum / clubroom is a great place to debate these things, but if you really want them changed then you need to put it in writing to your local controlling body. (MA)

"Too many rules equals too many hassels"

"Just suck it and see. Play hard, ride hard and enjoy"

[Doc]

yeah I know and I totally agree Geoff, it is a silly hypothetical scenario but also consider this. All us old blokes are not getting any younger hence new younger blood is filtering in. This new blood isn't from the same 'old school' blood that many older rider share. They ride to win and win they do and this will become more and more the norm. I just think something so simple could be rectified now before it ever becomes an issue because sure as eggs one day it will and as someone else stated, I'd hate to be the poor bastard officiating It's no biggy to me but a downpipe on an RM125N dirt tracker for example in my eyes looks horn

[Freakshow]

Fill in that little post back rule change thing that comes in the MOms

[Nathan S]

It's an easy rule to side step - say your down-pipe-equipped DT1 is questioned. You can then claim that you're actually riding a special (aka hybrid) that's made up of parts from a DT1 and a 'something with a down-pipe', and you'll be untouchable.  /  /

Really, while I agree with the GMC's stated intent of the rule, its basically impossible to enforce as written.

[JC]

Probably, most of us agree, "too many rules = too many hassles", but it solves nothing as it stands since the rule is already there.

Here's a very real scenario: A keen VMXer travels thousands of Km to the Nats, spending $1000 on fuel alone, & taking a week of his holidays or time w'out pay to get there. He's racing for fun, goes hard at it, has a ball & manages to get on the podium. The guy he pipped for 3rd place doesn't like getting pipped, notices that his F11 has a downpipe when it was originally fitted w an up-pipe, & protests that his pipe does not "follow original lines". (Putting up the $50 to protest is a pittance compared to what the other guy has spent just to get there.)

The only thing the officials of the day have to go on is the rule as written. Obviously the bike was not originally fitted w any kind of down-pipe, so the protest is upheld. Understandably, the guy is shattered, even tho he's only there for the fun, & he probably never comes back. Many are rightly disgusted & the flow-on disillusions others as well.

We can say all we like about it being bad sportsmanship, unfair, ridiculous, mean-hearted, pedantic, etc, but such people are out there. As the saying goes, "there's one in every crowd", & it only takes one. With younger racers & their diff attitudes comes younger officials (eg their Dads) also w diff attitudes.

It's a very real scenario for those who live a long way from the action. There's already a precedent. Something almost identical happened to John Boag at the WA Nats over bolts instead of rivets. My perception of that action is that it had a massive impact on pre75 racing, esp at Nats level. People rightly think, "If thats how they're going to play, I'm out of here". We can ill-afford another like action.

But nothing will change if all we do is discuss it here. Somebody has to fill in one of those rule change forms & get it reworded (or dropped completely). Until then, the bloke in the above scenario is very vulnerable. As Doc says, better to do it now before it happens & avoid the considerable pain, repercussions & disillusionment.

PS, GMC yr pipes are very tastefully done, blending modern pipe designs w era-sympathetic lines extremely well in a way most of us would regard as entirely appropriate. What we need to avoid is things like the lowboy pipe on the YZa in VMX mag several issues ago.

[firko]

I see this situation from both sides. It's so very easy to say that "I'm only doing this for fun" yet the fact that you've gone to the expense and trouble to get a full racing licence and enter a Championship event would tell me that youre indeed taking the sport very seriously. If you were only playing with old bikes "for fun", I would asume that the local club vintage meet that doesn't necessarily have to enforce MOMs would suit your involvement level. If you are intent on racing VMX at a championship level we have to look past the "she'll be right" attitude. What's expected from each class needs to be spelled out in clear detail to close the loopholes that some racers use to advantage or simply so that every racer know what's expected from his bike. This pipe rule is a clear example of a rule that was placed in the rulebook with the best intentions but unfortunately it's not clear enough in it's definition. I'll bet that the person who proposed it (and those who passed it) hadn't considered the period aftermarket products that were available prior to 1975. To disallow a downpipe on a DT1 and the many of other similar examples because they don't "follow original lines" is a serious problem that needs addressing fairly quickly. Common sense has thankfully taken precedence in the past but we all know that there are some extremely pedantic folks out there who seem to regard petty protesting as a birthright.

I'm also surprised that the pedants haven't taken the "Engines must remain externally unchanged" rule literally. If the rule was literally enforced all aftermarket heads, bolt on or weld on reed kits and even aftermarket cylinders would be found ineligible to race. At the Cherabah Nats in 1995 I came in second in pre 70 250 on my DT1 and in the parc ferme after the event, the fourth place getter protested the bike as he suspected that I had too much rear suspension travel. After the scrutineers checked the bike they found the suspension kosher and the protest was dismissed. If that protester would have studied his MOMs carefully he could have nailed me because the DT1 had a Webco head, DT2MX outer cases and a period snailpipe, all ilegal by the rules. Thankfully commonsense was in place and things like this are rarely if ever bought up.

Both of these rules can be easily fixed by a simple reword. The pipe rule could read "all exhaust systems must conform to the "spirit of the era. Pipes with tapered headers or large centre sections must follow period lines." The engine rule could be worded "All external engine components must be in the spirit of the era" and be manufactured prior to 31st Dec 1975."
I know these words are also open for manipulation but they are a lot better than what we've got now.

Like most things in life VMX needs firm, easily followed rules or we would be in a situation similar to our Classic Road Racing brothers where manipulation of the rules has driven many legitimate competitors away because they got tired of been beaten by rulebook manipulators and scrutineers too apathetic to deal with the problem. Our rules are pretty good as they stand except for some wording tidy ups. If you build your bike legitimately "within the spirit of the era" it's to be raced, you won't need to ever use the book again. We also have to look within ourselves when we feel that we need to protest another racer and ask the question as to whether the percieved ilegality is blatant enough to have made a difference to the performance of the bike. Most protests are childishly pedantic examples of "making a point" and have little bearing on performance or period integrity.

[Nathan S]

Funnily enough, the rally scene has the opposite problem for the same reason - they too have fundamentally good, well supported rules that are poorly worded, which create lots of ambiguity and stress. But rather than having petty protests over trivial things, nobody ever protests - even when they know another car is clearly illegal. And the scrutineers are never sure whether they stand in terms of enforcing vehicle eligibility, so only really blatant stuff gets icked up there...

The outcome is just as bad for the racing - people get the shits and go/stay home.


In Firko's example from the '95 Nats, I wonder whether the whole scenario of "protesting" is a big part of the problem.
I know nothing of the details (other than what Firko just posted), but if the guy honestly thought that Firko's bike had too much rear travel (even though he was wrong), then he's fully entitled to question it. The whole process of having a "protest" and forking over money, automatically makes it antagonistic, and will bring drama into the situation.

[Freakshow]

I agree Nat you should only have to fork out the $70 if it involve engine questions/ pulling somthing apart, other obvious period questions should just be a case of ask the question and let the scutineer or clerk decide its relevance, if i had to pay $70 by that action alone i would want a result and press for it,  but by making it open as a question, you may get more indirect adjudications and a better spririt of competition as folks conform.

At the 08 Canberra nats that Slider #710 that came in 3rd in the PRe 75 i think it was,  had a complete YZc/MXb motor in it, ( see bike next to my #52) and not just some bits, THE whole freakin MOTOR. 

I know 211 picked it up later in the event, but the guy in 4th probally never knew, he would have been handed 3rd on a platter.   I made the final of the 250cc shoot out and truth be known, had i been that guy in forth i would have paid the money, No questions asked.     

Why? i had spent a lot $$ in fuel and took time off work to drive 14 hours to get there to experiance the event, but ultimately why should you be unfairly beaten by something that should be riden in another class up ( pre 78), just because some other guy is too lasy to read the book or makes such a massive Fo-par  ( how in the 'spirit of era' is a light frame and a later model fast motor Kosha ? )  It not,  its just unfair to the other 10 guys that were sitting on the finals grid trying to do the right thing.

Being able to question it during the event ( at no charge) allowed the scrutineers to get it on the radar and at least inform the rider he was on notice should someone protest, that gave him the option to correct the unit before the finals, but also enoforces the spirit of the event in that if it made a significat differance to his placing it wouldnt be fair of him to compete.    Personally i would rather have seen that bike finished 4th albeit just to see a correct period bike earn the trophy properly but still to save any protest carry on in the park femme or later.

[JC]

Well said Mark.

Whats obvious from this thread is that the rules need ammending.

[DJRacing]

Just a thought......
    When it comes to scrutineering why cant the riders of the class (eg pre75 125) scrutinize each others bikes(as a group) at the start of the day. If all riders in that class agree the bikes are legal to race against each, then go racing. If one or more riders find fault(s) with a bike in there own class then all the other riders are there to say yes or no to whether the bike is ok to race or not. All this happens before the racing starts and once it is sorted you have no problems at the end of the day.
 
An official would need to be present at any objection to give a final decision or at least be an unbias judge.

Most of us know what is legal/illegal in our class and concerning the gray areas of the rules if all agree on the day to race each other then what more can you say.

Just a thought.

[Lozza]

"Onus of proof of eligabilty lies with the entrant" in other words if you have proof(pictures or magazine articles) that the part was used in the period then that overrides everything.NO protest will ever stand with kind of proof.Rules are fine and since log books were introduced in Period road racing eligabilty issues/protests have gone away.The famous 'twin down tube" saga(if I have that right) would have ended quickly if the entrant had proof of a twin down tube was used in the day.Simple. I seriously doubt a PVL or an adapted late model ignition passes "spirit of the era" tests,however components like ignitons are not rare, expensive or exclusive and freely available to anyone.