Aussie titles. Protest. pre -/78 125's

[olddirtbikes]

 Hi all,
         To all those who were involved what did you think of the bulls..t protest after the last race of the day which held every thing up for a couple of hours? The first protest against the bike that ran second in that race and was subsequently disqualified was because it had a set of longer than standard fork caps!!!. The protestor claimed that they INCREASED fork travel and they should not be allowed in pre 78 class. Unfortunately both the protestor and the adjudicating officials are not aware all the extensions do is to raise the air valve up a little for easy access (NO PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENTS!!). I have a set on a bike at home, they came from the U.S. and I believe they were made by Wabco, were readily available as period aftermarket parts (Legal?). Until clarification on this point I will have to take them off before the Queensland titles or risk a possible protest against myself. The second and third protests were against the two bikes that ran third and fourth. It related to the modified rear brake torque arm. The claim that the torque arm running up to the frame was only available on the 'C' model and gives an unfair advantage shows the inability of the protestor and officials to comprehend the spirit of a legal period modification. The advantage that was supposedly gained is non existant due to the dynamics of cable operated rear brakes. According to the protestor no one did this modification to their bikes in 1977 (Big call worldwide!!!). Bikes with a cable operated rear brake do not gain any advantage from this modification any way, but again I had better change them all back before another protest. In the mean time I will be asking M.A. to clear these matters up.           

[mxmaniac]

Check the other related post on the issue, see what ya reckon!

[090]

Mate, have a look in the competition thread as it is being covered ( quite well ) . You are wrong on a couple of things. The three bikes protested are as follows. Two were C models with B tanks on them. The third had a complete C front end consisting of rubber mounted triple clamps and longer/ better forks. All were illegal and dealt with. Also the bike that ran second in that race was not involved in a protest as it was #894 that was second overall ( and in the last race if i remember rightly). You may need to get the full story before writing anything else . Cheers, Brad.

[oldfart]

Whoa , I left after racing had finished and thought it was all over rover 

[Kane Mcguire]

hey brad, you had a good meeting. you will be pissed by the time you have a beer out of all of your trophies!
Just to clear up the official protest statements made by the protester. i cant quote them but i read every word which was hand written in blue pen by the protester.
FIRST BIKE. top tripple clamp from a 1978 model bike. air cap extensions on forks from a 1978 model bike.( told if items changed, bike then legal)

SECOND BIKE.  brake stay arm attached to lower frame like a 1978 model bike.(told if brake stay arm is attached to swingarm, then bike legal.)

THIRD BIKE. brake stay arm attached to lower frame like a 1978 model bike.( told if brake stay arm attached to swing arm, then bike legal.)

[Nathan S]

http://ozvmx.com/community/index.php?topic=9067.0

[LWC82PE]

yes aftemarket webco, white brothers, Protec etc extension air caps are period aftermarket accessories that dont increase travel at all and therefore are legal. OEM extension caps from 78 model bike i dont think would be legal.


just because a part is not a performance enchancement, it doesnt mean its ok to use it if its off a later model.

[motomaniac]

yes aftemarket webco, white brothers, Protec etc extension air caps are period aftermarket accessories that dont increase travel at all and therefore are legal. OEM extension caps from 78 model bike i dont think would be legal.


just because a part is not a performance enchancement, it doesnt mean its ok to use it if its off a later model.

Leith which model Suzuki's came with the extended cap?I only remember them as an aftermarket item.
Mxa's test on the 250 C doesn't show any extensions and  says quote " identical cosmetic appearance" refering to 125 B forks.

[JohnnyO]

The C models came with the extended fork caps. In the case of the 250 it was the C2.
Is the MXA test you refer to the 250c1 test with the alloy tank?

[LWC82PE]

these suzukis had the extension caps as standard fitment

Part # = 51351-41220
Part Description = CAP ASSEMBLY,FORK
Model Count = 3
RM125C 1978
RM250C2 1978 1/2
RM400C 1978 

[motomaniac]

The C models came with the extended fork caps. In the case of the 250 it was the C2.
Is the MXA test you refer to the 250c1 test with the alloy tank?

Yes Johnny correct .I dont think they tested the C2.

[olddirtbikes]

  Hi,
      Brad as you can see from Kanes reply I did get all my facts right before I made my previous statement. Nothing was said in the protest about the bikes being 'C' model bikes dressed up as 'B' models. It was the Fork caps top tripple clamp and the rear brake torque arms. I believe it should be you who gets your facts right before making some of the statements you have here. So I will accept your apology in advance.
    Neither Kane or anyone else went over the protestors bike with a fine tooth comb as stated elsewhere. I know Kane or one of the others could have lodged a counter protest and most likely had it upheld, but that would have brought them down to the protestors level. We all could have left to go home about midnight then.
  I believe Big K said it nicely 'what a load of crap', kane and the others were not concerned about tin pot $2.00 medals they just wanted to get their bikes and get started on a seven hour trip home.
                               Regards,     

[090]

Hi  .
If i am wrong on any point i will apologise straight up. Probably a couple of things that have been left out of this debate is the fact that like you and Kane have said, only one specific thing was pointed out as being wrong. This is because that is all one needs to prove the bike is incorrect.
So to say this in a different way if an rm125 C with a B tank on it was protested on in pre78, the protester would only have to pick one part/ reason why its illegal. Such as triple clamps.
I will apologise for my previous post as it has a bit of anger on it. So sorry mate.
So also be aware if you have the alleged rm125 C with a B tank and you were told if you change the triples that it will be legal, you have been miss informed.
All the best.

[firko]

As someone a bit closer to the process than Olddirtbikes I'll back Brad in his statement that the torque arms and triple clamps were the only things mentioned in the disqualification as they were the only points needed before a decision was made. I spoke to the eligibility steward this morning and he confirmed that the bikes in question were clearly C models masquerading as B's and in the opinion of the stewards deliberately changed in an attempt to deceive. They weren't the only ones spotted but they were the ones caught out and protested. Simple. For this sport to work people have to get their bikes correct. The rules are simple...build your bikes to suit whatever division the bike fits into and if you aren't sure of something...ask.

It makes a mockery of the rulebook to have bikes that don't conform to the rules.  It's so f*cking easy to build your bike to a particular class so if you want to race in pre '78, go find an A or B model RM125. To dress an RM125C as a B and trying to get away with racing it in pre 1978 is just plain wrong and yes, I'll say it...cheating, no matter how much spin you want to put on it. If you reckon the protesters bike is dodgy you should have protested. It makes a mockery of the protest system when the bloke who made the decision to protest is criticised and vilified for doing the absolutely correct thing. To slam him on a forum is uncalled for and damaging to the sports image. Does that mean that every time someone places a legitimate protest the guilty parties mates will now go on an anonymous shit slinging exercise against the protester? There's no excuse for cheating.....none. If you don't follow the rules you should be big enough to deal with the consequences, just as Kane did.

After 22 years of dealing with eligibility issues in this sport I'm sick to death of Neville Know-Alls coming out and blabbering about this bike and that bike ....after the event. If you reckon something is not right deal with it through the proper channels at the time of the offence, not slag blokes who shouldn't have to defend their actions on a public forum a week later.

[Kane Mcguire]

Whoa firko, steady up. you are making statements that you can not know. if a bike has an illegal component, yes we can work out that it is illegal. BUT YOU AND THE STEWARD CAN NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS TO THE REASONS WHY THE ILLEGAL PARTS ARE ON THE BIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

some quotes from your reply." CLEARLY C MODELS"   "MASQUERADING AS B'S"
and the one that really shits me,  " OPINION OF THE STEWARDS... DELIBERATELY CHANGED IN AN ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE "

 I bought my rm 125 b 5 years ago and have always though it was and is a b model. i have never changed anything on it.

Since the titles and cause i love vmx and want to do the right thing by the sport i have really had a good investigative look at my bike.

the tripple clamps and forks are b. back wheel and hub etc are b.( the sprocket is different on the c.)  no extended air caps. the swingarm i reckon is c model.  i have sanded the paint off and someone has welded a brake stay arm bracket onto the frame. i am getting a bit of alloy to weld to the swingarm to mount the arm there. on the c there was a bracket to hold the tank on. i cant find evidence on mine. i really think it is a b.

we can all point the finger if something is incorrect but i dont think anyone can deduce the reasoning why it was done.