Eligilibty scrutineer at the Nationals

[Graeme M]

I marvel at this thread. Rules are wonderful things but so open to interpretation. My RM has folding pegs but no spring. I have always passed srutineering, even at modern meetings, by using a rubber band. As I see it, 'spring' is not defined. A spring, according to any number of dictionaries, is:

An elastic contrivance or body, as a strip or wire of steel coiled spirally, that recovers its shape after being compressed, bent, or stretched.

That's a rubber band to me. I'd like to see someone argue that a rubber band is not 'legal' using the MoMS.

Fixed pegs could be another story I guess.

[Freakshow]

Greame, i have no issue with the pivoting thing, but the Returning spring crap is a Wind up.   

"Self returning" thats the only ruling - self return means that, it returns under its own steam, no implied time limit , not implied outside asistance no implied method or mechanical return, "it just returns to where it was before."

IM not sure how this story even got legs, but Its a prity bloody simple, if it goes off the horizontal plane it only needs to return to horizontal, there is no need to inflect some statement to specify the mechanics of how the peg achives this.    There is no way this can be inforced.

[worms]

Dear Freakshow, as there is nobody home at MA at the moment i went to the next level which is MQ, i have relayed to all the General managers position on the question at hand, as you all will be scrutineered by a level 4 official for machine safety, dont know if you did this in Tassi or not, they will be your judge and MA has indicated an enforcement of those gcr's and not any LOCAL RULES AS YOU IMPLY. For F##K sake $3 springs.

you know what i will give you $6 if you come, to pay for the springs( if your bikes upside down do the pegs return.)

the local peanut farmer, Trev

[firko]

Trev, the point is that some classic bikes aren't set up to run springs without serious modifications. As many haven't had to deal with this before it's not as $3 simple as you imply.....that's the dilemna, not how much they cost.
Why is this such a big scrutineering foo foo raw now in the twenty first year of vintage motocross when it's never previously been a worry?  Methinks eligibility on a few bikes I spotted at CD6 will be more of a "problem" than whether a footpegs return journey is propelled by a spring or not.

[worms]

i agree with you firko, if only i wrote the rules.

also, since when can anyone include GRAVITY as an integeral part of your machine, if we did it's uses would be endless, upside-down forks arent really upside-down. oh my tyres arent flat on top, you wouldnt need bolts in your seat as gravity holds it there,

Come on guys, there's got to be more uses for gravity i just cant htink of them at the moment.

i think it's getting to me, but hey i will just slag of at Tassie to make me feel better!

[LWC82PE]

yeah i would hate to have to fit them to the old british bikes. It is so confusing. Just when i thought it was all cleared up and you dont need springs then someone says 100% you do need springs. I just dont know but i will keep watching this to get the final definite answer. Seems a shame if you gotta do some serious mods to fit 'wire' springs to an otherwise period bike.

[Nathan S]

Given that the GCRs say:

Foot pegs         12.8.5.1     a   well rounded  and no dangerous edges due to wear  
                                       b  Hinged or pivoted  Controlled by a return spring  

..while the Classic MX regs say:

"18.3.0.5 Self returning folding footrests must be fitted."

...and we know that the Classic Regs over-ride the GCRs (as they should, as 12.8.5.1 is clearly written with road racing as its primary focus).
So the only logical interpretation is that if springs were needed for Classic MX, then the Classic MX regs would specifically mention springs, rather than the vague term "self-returning".
The Manual is a regulatory document - its not camp-fire talk where details are left out simply because they take too long to say... If the manual wants it to be so, then the manual spells it out. And if the manual doesn't spell it out, then obviously the manual does not want it to be so.

And I'm sorry Worms, but the word of some MQ office worker is nothing more than an opinion - and it has no more (or less) weight than anyone in this forum's opinion.
If this issue really got nasty (eg: People being sent home from the event), it would go to the stewards and then the Eligibility commission, and your argument would lose, sooner or later.

And when we can ride our bikes upside down, then I'll happily accept that gravity does not provide adequate self-returning of footpegs.  

I just don't understand why its so crucially important for this to be enforced.
On one hand, you've got several people saying "I won't come if this is enforced", "Plenty of bikes never had srping loaded footpegs", "Many footpeg-springless bikes have been ridden in many VMX events in the past without drama", etc.
On the other hand, we've got "But you need springs!".

[LWC82PE]

Imagine all the non forum users travelling unsuspecting all the way to Queensland to be greeted with this new rule . Enough to turn many off for good , thats for sure.

exactly what i was thinking. There would still be many people who are planning to race but do not use the internet or view this forum.

[worms]

the forum has been asking for clarifcation of this rule, and you've been given it,

has it been asked if this rule will be enforced at the Nationals, the instruction from MA and it's eligability scrutineer is YES.

how it is worded, well, the question has been asked and asked and asked and at least i got an answer from Lindsey< who is the GM for MQ, and not just the guy you want to talk to is on holidays for 2 months from MA.

just think, if it had been left alone we could have handle it on case by case assesment but you guys have brought to the rule book NAZI's. clarify this or clarify that, if any of you had raced in Qld you would of known the way we do things and accept all bikes arnt the same.

but , lets do our best to undermine an event, because that is all you are doing.

people would have come, ridden without springs($3) and certainly not sent home as some emply, some would of come with fixed foot pegs and NOTHING would of been said, but i think it comes down to group of small minded people intent, and probally arnt even coming to the event, f##king it up just to bignote.I am a major sponsor for the event, and i am wondering what the f##k for.

[Graeme M]

Trev, I am not having a go at you in saying what I am about to. I know how frustrating this whole thing is. But it's the sort of thing that happens all the time. A rule is a rule. And it's interpretation has to be clear or the next thing you know someone's in trouble. You can't say "if we hadn't asked it'd be OK". Either it is or it isn't.

And if the MoMS very clearly says one thing, how can MA say another? Are the rules there to be some sort of flower arrangement dependent upon who's scrutineering, what state the event is held in and what mood the steward is in? Surely not?

That said, if the rule is to be enforced as meaning a metal return spring is required, then don't bother arguing it. State that it is so and leave it be. At least people know what they have to work with then...

[090]

JIm get a call into NAtional MA and get them to overrule local "Bjelke-Pederson" idiology for the sanity of the rest of the country please.

Instead of ranting and raving here, why dont you call yourself? Emails are free if the cost of a call is too much.
You have had a couple of swipes at Queenslanders. What the problem is?
Blokes like Trev must be doing something right, as its going great guns up here.
hoWS ThE sCEne doWN tHrerE!???

The rule sucks, thats a given. You cant shoot the messenger.

[jimg1au]

dirt track sliders dont have to have any bull shirt springs on the rght hand side and they come under the same gcrs as mx bikes.the foot peg folds down and up just by gravity.modern or classic no difference.
so how can this rule be ok for 1 and not the other. when you buy a brand new 1 it come with swinging rhs foot peg no springs.

[worms]

and to add, NONE of this shit went on prior to Tassi, Coffs or even WA, all you have done is keep shoving it down peoples throats until it starts to stick. not one negatitive word was ever said about these events or even 226 pages of shit that has brought nothing but more stupid questions, i have never knocked a rider or bike back at an event, but you all want the last word from MA, so what now is going to happen probally wont be in the interest of the sport, SO THE WHOLE TREADH SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE WEB AS NOTHING CAN GAINED FROM IT ACCEPT BRINGING AN EVENT INTO CONTINUED DISPUTE, WHERE AS IF TREATED LIKE PAST NATIONALS WITHOUT ALL THIS, IT WOULD HAVE FLOWED LIKE EVERY OTHER EVENT WE RUN UP HERE, BRILLIANT!

SORRY GRAMAME, I THINK ENOUGH DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE!

Trev

[090]

I had a tm125 and hated the fact that it didnt have return springs. You would come out of a rutted corner and find the footpeg was gone as the dirt would hold it up. They do feel dangerous to me also.
TMBill put return springs on his TM using clamps to hold the spring to the frame.

[Graeme M]

Trev, no-one is having a go at the event. It'll go off, it'll be fine on the day and it'll be the success it deserves to be.

But there have often been eligibility issues at the Nats, sadly because the rules are not always clear and also because people have all sorts of interpretations. So this thread was started with the intent of clarifying those issues. And it has done so. Now there's a sticking point. It's no-ones fault as such, no-one is trying to torpedo the event.

BUT. If someone rocked up with non-sprung pegs (and I'll bet there are plenty) AND they were knocked back, it just might make them unhappy.

So, it has to be clarified before the event. If the ruling is springs are needed, then people are forewarned and they can decide what to do from there. We can't now pretend this hasn't been raised given the questions have been asked of MAQ.

And if you want to see how this sort of thing has been raised and dealt with in the past, look at the thread about noise for the 2008 DT Nats. Lotsa of angst there but it was all OK on the day.

I can't imagine, if springs are needed, it will be all that hard to rig something up. Personally, I'd rock up without the springs and take my chances!