I don't know if you're taking the piss here Jeff. I can never tell with you
.
*
I was wrong, they come from Belgium
Holland, Belgium, the Vatican, who cares
where they come from. It's
what they are that matters.
*
You can take any old four-stroke and make a real Frankenstein and nobody comments
True Jeff but most of those bikes a based on a historic precedent. They're built to replicate a bike or "concept" from a particular time in our sports history.
*
or some dodgy old US '70s frame kit - or some nickel plated $20K UK wonder [where nothing in the kit actually fits, including the engine and you have to have it replated after it is FIXED]
I don't see that this point is relevent in the context of the topic but in short...see previous answer.
To enlarge on your comment although it's really got nothing to do with the subject, on what do you base your assumptions that "
nothing in the kit actually fits, including the engine and you have to have it replated after it is FIXED]" Have you had much experience building such bikes that enables you to make such a broad generalisation?
*
but chop up a common old Yamaha or 2 and you guys arc up
It's not the chopping up of old Yamahas that's distasteful, it's the stretching of the original "Twin Shock" race class concept by modifying bikes to fit into a class for which they were never eligible in their original configuration. This situation has been discussed ad infinitum in the UK and it's a given that these kind of bikes weren't envisioned in the original Twin Shock concept. The class developed to cater for bikes that were equipped with twin shock rear suspension
from the factory.I know myself and other detractors look at thes bikes from an Aussie perspective and realise that the rules they race under are vastly different to ours but I think that by allowing such a loose interpretation of the twin shock concept they run the chance of pushing the legally (
morally)eligible bikes away due to them not being able to compete on a 'level playing field' with the Hot Rod bikes.
