concerning pipes that do not basically follow the original design

[firko]

Lozza.....The whole reason the Vern Grayson twin downtube saga became such a shitfight is that Vern did have written proof including a letter from Eric Cheney, the manufacturer and from Jim Holt, the president of the British Pre 65 club who raced a twin tube Cheney in the day and was still riding it up 'til the 90s in Brit pre 65 motocross. That's why Vern fought so hard. I still don't understand why his case was dismissed as I have copies of all of the evidence and it's pretty convincing. In the end it's the most disgraceful example of discrimination I've seen. I still get angry when I think about it.

Besides that, I agree with you wholeheartedly with the onus of proof point, but have to disagree that eligibility issues have gone away in classic road racing. The blatant cheats have just become more cunning. If my mate Peters specially cast Villiers barrel that features late model YZ Yamaha porting including an integrated reed block can get through scrutineering with a pat on the back from the scrutineers, the problems are still there. They're just turning a blind eye.

As an aside....Vern will have his famous Cheney in the Kevlar Kompound at CD6 so everybody who doubts the legality of the bike can see it for themselves.

[mx250]

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.

Hmmmmm. Certainly has merit . I can think of some additional benefits other than just rules. But I can also think of a downside. It would have to be thought through. I would be very dependant on the group and group dynamics.

[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.

Hmmmmm. Certainly has merit . I can think of some additional benefits other than just rules. But I can also think of a downside. It would have to be thought through. I would be very dependant on the group and group dynamics.

MX250, At the start of the day you get to meet your competitors, their bikes and if one of the group protested a "spirit of the era" down-pipe/up-pipe/rivets V's bolts etc and the others in the group dont see the problem with the part then the bike stays and goes racing. It would also be a good way to discuss guide lines for modifications/parts and could put a stop to petty protests on the way the rules are worded. It would also help newbies to the sport on what is excepted and what isnt excepted. Plus you would also get to know the shit stirrers and put a stop to their bullshit.
At the end of the day it always seems to be the decent guys that decide to leave the fold because the crap isnt worth listening to, so they leave and dont come back. If the other riders of the class get to have a say at the start of the day and keep the small minded/petty protests in check, then maybe there wouldnt be people leaving vmx because of 1 or 2 assholes and they could stay and enjoy their racing because of the sensible decent common majority of people in vmx.

Once again.... just a thought.....

[GMC]

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

I say get rid of this rule alltogether. I doubt anything could be written without a loophole of some sort or penalizing someone for nothing.
"Spirit of the era" is to vague, too many different opinions on where to draw the line.

"What we need to avoid is things like the lowboy pipe on the YZa in VMX mag several issues ago."
This pipe looked so out of place on this bike, to me it was all wrong, but what does it really matter? Are we concerned about ugly bikes at the races or being beaten by an ugly bike?

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.

The old bolts versus rivets myth again.
Never has a protest been lodged on the basis that rivets were replaced by bolts.

This story refers to the pre 65 CZ twinport which has a funny sort of one-piece sprocket / brake hub with a ¾ alloy hub riveted to it. By the late seventies they had the more conventional style hub with a normal style sprocket bolted on. Two very different types of hubs that are described as either bolted or riveted
The bike in question at the Nats had the later hub in the earlier bike & this was the basis of the protest. Yes, it’still a very anal point as it clearly wasn’t performance enhancing but as the major part was from another era the protest was upheld.
Much the same as having a round section swingarm instead of square box on a pre 70 DT1, not performance enhancing, but the parts must be of the era.
The rider I believe was Boagy & he should have known better at a National but I don’t believe he was trying to cheat but simply swapped parts in order to keep a bike running.
He would be excused for taking his bat & ball & never returning but to his credit he copped it on the chin & still turns up with a tandem full of bikes & rides his tits off.

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.

Thanks JC, your checks in the mail
While I like my pipes to look right, any rule that trys to ban fat pipes or tapered headers would just be a pain in the arse, not just to me but also riders & scrutineers.  Who's going to be able to measure a pipe on raceday to decide where the header ends & the diffuser begins. The 250 Elsinore had a very advanced pipe for it's day with a tapered header & multi stage diffuser.

[Nathan S]

Much the same as having a round section swingarm instead of square box on a pre 70 DT1, not performance enhancing, but the parts must be of the era.

Ah, and there's another one...

There are two easy ways to argue that a round section swing arm is legal on a DT1 in pre-70:
1. As the RT1 is an allowed pre-70 bike, and no RT1 was ever fitted with a square section swingarm, then the round section swing arm on my DT1 is legal. If push comes to shove, then my bike is simply a DT1/RT1 special.
2. There are TWO listings for DT1 in the list of eligible bikes. The first is the age-old "DT1 with square section swing arm", while the second is the newer listing that says 'AT1, CT1, DT1 and RT1 when fitted with a non-reed-valve barrel'. My bike does not meet the first criteria, but it meets the second - so its indisputably legal in pre-70.
The original rule should have been deleted when the newer one was added.

Apart from anything, in an era when vintage bikes are sporting modern style alloy swing arms, $500 DT1s with round swing arms won't cause the sky to fall in.

I agree that the restrictive pipe rules can't be made to work - and I'm saying this even though I hate "low-boy" pipes on old bikes.

[mainline]

apologies to MXA for the unauthorised use of material..........

http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn38/mainline_bucket/IMG.jpg

[mx250]

apologies to MXA for the unauthorised use of material..........

http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn38/mainline_bucket/IMG.jpg

Priceless

[firko]

This story refers to the pre 65 CZ twinport which has a funny sort of one-piece sprocket / brake hub with a ¾ alloy hub riveted to it. By the late seventies they had the more conventional style hub with a normal style sprocket bolted on. Two very different types of hubs that are described as either bolted or riveted

This brings in another anomoly in the rulebook. While Peter Lawson (there, I've outed the most pedantic man in VMX)
did indeed succeed with his protest on Boagy in WA, he managed to miss a couple of local Metisses fitted with the later bolted CZ hub at the same event. Gavin Martini and Alan Jones, to name just two racers off the top of my head, both have bolt up CZ hubs in their Rickman Metisses and have not only competed at national level, but won titles in the pre '65 class. I'm certain ther are many more as the magnesium CZ hub is the hub of choice for many pre '65 racers.

For 20 years, nobody has given a damn what CZ hubs are being used in pre '65 so the situation Boagy encountered in WA would seem to be a problem with anal retentive pedantics from fellow competitors and a misreading of the rulebook by scrutineers. Rule 14.2.10 Acceptable Components...Wheels states...."Rickman alloy and magnesium, REH, BSA/Triumph conical alloy, AJS stormer, Greeves conical, small Husqvarna,CZ MOTOCROSS and pattern parts to these designs. Early Bultaco with full width hubs and Montesa full width are allowed". As you can read, there is nothing stating that the early hub must be used so I reckon Boagy was treated unfairly. Like GMC says, Boagy took it on the chin and continues racing and winning to this day but that doesn't detract from the fact that he was indeed robbed.

Boagy and Grayson aren't the only ones that have been treated unfairly by the system. I don't thing the "problem" is to do with the rulebook per se, but more to do with pedantic serial protesters. If you checked the DNA of most of the controversial protests in VMX over the last 20 years, you'd find the same names attached, time after time. Like I've said elsewhere, we need rules to prevent anarchy but they are sometimes used to the detriment of good sport and common sense. If we controlled the pedantic attitudes rather than the alleged cheats, our sport would be a nicer place to be.

[JC]

      "The old bolts versus rivets myth again.
      Never has a protest been lodged on the basis that rivets were
       replaced by bolts."

With all due respect, the point is that the part was a non-performance-enhancing part & the protest was pedantic, but was upheld because of what the rule said - precisely the issue at stake here.

And it had a massive impact on the sport - precisely what we're trying to avoid happening again.

    "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."

Loz, you seem to be interpreting the rule "must follow original lines" differently to most others. Most others seem to interpret that as following the lines of the original exhaust on that model. You seem to be interpreting it as following original lines of any aftermarket pipe of the day. More ambiguity! But the rule does seem to imply the former/majority interpretation.

     "What we need to avoid is things like the lowboy pipe on the YZa in
       VMX mag several issues ago."
       This pipe looked so out of place on this bike, to me it was all wrong,
        but what does it really matter? Are we concerned about ugly bikes at
        the races or being beaten by an ugly bike?

It seems to be the general consensus that lines/appearances should be consistent w those of the era, & that the type of parts used were available in the day.

      "At the end of the day it always seems to be the decent guys that
      decide to leave the fold because the crap isnt worth listening to, so
      they leave and dont come back."

All too true, which is why it needs resolving.

The options seem to be either of the following:

1) Delete the rule altogether (with nothing in its place)
2) Replace it w a rule banning low-boy pipes only
3) Reword the original rule to read something like,
      "Exhausts may be modifed but must generally follow the lines of pipes
       available in the era"

[firko]

With all due respect, the point is that the part was a non-performance-enhancing part & the protest was pedantic, but was upheld because of what the rule said - precisely the issue at stake here.

With respect John, the rule covering the CZ hub in pre 65 is perfectly adequate, and in fact allows quite a number of post '65 hubs such as REH, Alloy and Mag Rickman and others. The problem with the Boagy decision was not that it was "upheld because of what the rule said" as you state, but because the rule was either inadvertantly or deliberately misinterpreted by officials.

Our problem with most of the supposed rulebook discrepancies is quite often to do with the interptretation, not the actual wording. The hub situation backs my point. The pipe rule however is misleading and vague and most definitely needs some alteration. Having said that, the rule has never, to my knowledge been questioned in the heat of a race meeting before as I feel that most competitors and officials have a reasonable knowledge of history and understand what's period acceptable. The only problems are when competitors with weird agenda like to enter protests that do nothing but create bad blood and weak officials who are too gutless and ignorant of the rules to stand up to these bullys. Full marks must go to Herb Conlon and Kevin MacDonald for standing up to the serial protester at the Coffs Nats and dismissing his attempts at protesting a bike out of the meeting. If more officials had the balls and knowledge that Conlon and MacDonald posessed, we wouldn't be needing to tighten the wording in the rulebook.

[Brian Watson]

Mark, whilst the reference to "hubs" is a little off topic, I believe that the "hubs" rule was changed sometime after the "incident" at Northam...So...at the time ..as the MOMS was worded...the protest was legit....similar to the use of carbs for pre 65 bikes....that was also changed after the Nats in WA...That said...I do see some groundswell of support for a re-word of the pipes item...with particular interest is the slider guys who mostly ran down pipes on whatever they were competing on...

[GMC]

      "The old bolts versus rivets myth again.
      Never has a protest been lodged on the basis that rivets were
       replaced by bolts."

With all due respect, the point is that the part was a non-performance-enhancing part & the protest was pedantic, but was upheld because of what the rule said - precisely the issue at stake here.

And it had a massive impact on the sport - precisely what we're trying to avoid happening again.

I agree it was a non-performance-enhancing part & he was robbed, but what irks me is that it is always reffered to as "bolts instead of rivets" which makes it sound much worse than it was.
It is far more damaging for the sport to have potential members believe that they will be banned for replacing non standard bolts. This exagerated chinese whisper also brings on other questions like, "what if I use an aftermarket sprocket" & "what colour plastics can I use"

The options seem to be either of the following:

1) Delete the rule altogether (with nothing in its place)
2) Replace it w a rule banning low-boy pipes only
3) Reword the original rule to read something like,
      "Exhausts may be modifed but must generally follow the lines of pipes
       available in the era"

I like option 3 best JC
Option 1 would be my next choice.
I don't think option 2 would work. We we both know what a low-boy pipe is but it is also a vague term & some dickhead in years to come what turn it into "down pipes a banned"

[Freakshow]

Under or over it still a pipe. Period.

All moms should say is it has a silencer 

[firko]

In what year was the Northam Nats Yammiefan? I can go back to the '91 Nats at Dargle where a Metisse with a post 65 CZ hub won the class. He won again at Ravenswood the following year after being examined by legendary tough scrutineer Peter Drakeford who wouldn't have let something like that through if it wasn't kosher. I'm almost certain that the hub requirements for pre '65 have remained unchanged since the eligibility table was introduced to MoMs in around 1995.
See what you've started with this pipe thing Brian?? 

Sometimes your ignorance astounds me Freaky.   

Priceless

[JC]

Yeh, point taken GMC. I was just trying to keep the discussion on the topic at hand, rather than on tangents. Didn't mean to take a 'snipe' at you tho.

I like Option 3 (rewording) best too. Likewise, Option 1 next.

Like you said previously, you can't outlaw fatty-pipes cos at what point do they become fat. I take yr point about low-boy pipes too. I was trying to incorporate the general consensus view which seems to be that low-boy pipes are inappropriate to the era.

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

Until somebody does that (or similar) this whole discussion is all-but futile