AHRMA and adjustable dampers

[Michael Moore]

The AHRMA rules for GP roadrace and pre 74 MX seem mostly concerned about no monoshock rear suspensions and no remote reservoirs. Nothing is said about external damping adjusters.

Are external adjusters any kind of issue in either RR or MX? I have a vague recollection that at one time that was the case but maybe the rules or just their interpretation have changed. Twin dampers being offered for sale with compression and/or rebound adjusters aren't hard to find, and it seems like excluding external adjusters but allowing revalveable dampers does nothing but make getting your suspension dialed in more of a PITA then would otherwise be the case.

cheers,
Michael

[carl849]

I'm not aware of any written rules specifically forbidding them. However, that alone does not make it legal. We have rulings based upon whether something is a "period modification" or not. Sometimes things are disallowed, other times it seems there is an allowance made for certain non-period items that don't offer clear competitive advantage and are commonly available. Contact the Vintage R&E committees to get a decision.

[Michael Moore]

Hi Carl,

"If it isn't excluded it is legal" seems to be how the rulebook sometimes works until someone raises an obvious question that they didn't think to cover and suddenly an "interpretation" is pulled out of left field and it turns into a "if it isn't specifically mentioned to be legal it isn't" situation.

I'm curious about what AHRMA officials are actually doing now when people show up with something like YSS with adjusters (or even a set of period Anaraco 2nd Suspension dampers with adjuster). The YSS are not near as expensive as modern "twin shock" Ohlins with no external adjusters that are fully revalveable and there seems to be no shortage of those Ohlins in use so the "ohh, those adjusters are just too darn expensive and will ruin vintage racing as we know it" line would be about as lame as any other time they try and use that kind of excuse.

In the MX section the rulebook says

11.2A 2) Any shock absorber may be used, providing the technology and design was commercially available in 1974 or was supplied as OEM on any AHRMA-legal machine.

Some legal shocks include 1974-era: Armstrong Marzocchi Bilstein Mulholland Betor S&W Curnutt Progressive Suspension Fox Shocks Works Performance Girling

Illegal shocks include: Any shock with a separate remote reservoir (i.e., connected by a hose) Any post-1974 technology, such as Fox air shocks, etc. Single-shock machines are prohibited.

I know of some steel and aluminum bodied dampers with single and dual external adjusters that were commercially available prior to 1968 (and are still in production today). Therefore, external adjusters were a period, commercially available feature. However, that doesn't mean that any given AHRMA official might not decide to say "nope, not allowed."

Would AHRMA accept documentation of that? Beats me. I have no great expectation that it would be accepted, as that's the response I've gotten in the past when I've brought to AHRMA's attention that they were ignoring both what was commonplace in the period as well as their own rulebook. I've seen photographs in VV of people running at the top of class championships in things like 500GP in multiple seasons with fairings that were commonly used in the UK from the very early 1960s but do not meet the letter of the AHRMA rules. I've not heard of them being protested or subject to a "obviously not to the rulebook" disqualification by the officials based on a visual inspection. That's a case where there is a bad rule that needs to be changed to match the practice but my attempt to help by pointing that out so it could be fixed got me the brush-off.

It clearly doesn't matter much what the rule book says since AHRMA doesn't always follow it and that's why I'm asking for comments about what they are actually doing. If 25-50% of the people on the RR and VMX grids are being allowed to run with externally adjustable dampers then I'll presume that they really meant what they said in the rulebook and if I get a good deal on some dampers I won't concern myself about the presence of the adjusters causing me problems at a race.

Selective enforcement of the rules makes for confusion and a lack of confidence in the rule enforcement process. When a rule that seems poorly written is consistently enforced you at minimum know what to expect and can say "I know this is a poor rule, but that's the rule and everyone has to run with it so I can plan to meet it", kind of the way the period Gunter and Rickman discs are excluded for everyone.

cheers,
Michael

[carl849]

Would AHRMA accept good documentation of something existing prior to a cutoff date? Heck yes. Be prepared to make your case that what you are proposing to use is similar enough to be considered equivalent and fair, but yes there are open minded discussions on this sort of thing. A rulebook should be a constantly improving document. The original authors could not think of everything. But I really believe we have, in the past few years, developed better processes of discussion and rulings. Please bring the topic up to committee level. It's very difficult when a referree at the track has to judge this sort of thing on short notice.

[Michael Moore]

Carl, it was January of last year, not in race season and I did it via email with the RR committee (member) and not at the track so that no one was in a big rush trying to run a race.

I actually raised several fairing issues. One was pretty minor where one part of the rule book conflicts with another a couple lines earlier and it could have been very easily made totally clear with five or six words, but it hasn't changed. Another clarification would address an issue that it at least two factory race fairings (from different major factories) have and would also have been easy to fix. I did get some comments back on these topics but they didn't result in the murky wording being fixed.

The third point wasn't even addressed in the reply. That was the one where I've seen top international classic riders at AHRMA events running several different period fairings that are afoul of the rules, yet the rulemakers seem to have decided to ignore the issue. No teardown needed, you can see the problem from hundreds of yards away. The fairing rule could have been amended with two words to fix that situation but that hasn't happened either. I supplied links to period and current photos illustrating the problem.

It does make me daydream sometime of what it would be like to have plenty of money so I could enter various races and file protests against big-name riders, just to see if AHRMA officials would squirm a bit.

cheers,
Michael

[phantom309]

You know michael, we do this for fun it is clear you have way to much time on your hands and need to attend more races. If a guys fairing is not 100% with the rules , I don't give a shit, have you looked at the grids lately, I like to have someone to race with.Just come race and quit nickle and diming the rules to death.

[Michael Moore]

Tim, why bother having a rule book if that's the attitude people are going to take? Are GSXR fairings on 250 Ducatis or YZ450Fs in 500GP fine with you? Why should anyone care when grids are down, we need more entries. Screw the rule book or "classic racing" if it gets more bikes on the grid, right?


The first thing every competitor should do is sit down with the rule book for their organization and find out what is and is not acceptable. There's no sense in building a bike that isn't legal, especially if all it takes a a visual inspection from a couple hundred feet away to spot the violation. There's also no sense in building a bike that is legal if the officials are going to let other people run parts that the rule book says aren't acceptable.

AHRMA in general has got a pretty decent rulebook, but it isn't perfect yet. The reason I suggested the above items to them was so they could improve it and possibly reduce the chance for some hassle in the future.

Do they want to avoid having someone come up after the finish of the 500GP or F750 race at Daytona and file a "visual" protest of one or more of the front runners? Especially if one of those people has gone to the bother of coming over the Atlantic to race? It should have happened at least a couple times in the past. If so, adding a few words as I suggested eliminates the possibility.

There's a problem when the rulebook says one thing and the official say "oh, that's not really period/in the spirit of the period" in spite of what the rulebook says. Or vice versa when the rule book says "no way" and the officials say "shoot, that's no big deal, we'll let it pass."

You can't properly enforce a rulebook that contradicts itself. And if they've gone to the effort of putting something in the rules, the officials should feel honor-bound to enforce that rule -- or get it officially changed if it is something they don't feel should be enforced. I think AHRMA has had problems in the past with "buddy" rule enforcement, or "he's a former national number, we can't DQ him even though his bike isn't legal." I'd prefer to see them never have to deal with those kind of issues again.

I've never filed a protest on something like that because its unlikely it would move me into the top half, much less a trophy. But I've seen people file those kinds of protests in AFM and I think there have been "rule book wording" protests in AHRMA. If someone is hungry enough for a trophy or the series points, they'll do what they have to do. You can lose a race in the garage by building an illegal vehicle (talk to the NASCAR guys about that) just as easily as by going slow on the track.

AHRMA doesn't need to start having people wearing AHRMA Mickey Mouse t-shirts as was done with AMA Mickey shirts in the 1960s. Make the rule book say what you mean it to say, and enforce what it says. Clear rules enforced in an open and even fashion makes the racing experience better for everyone. It also helps to avoid people building bikes that are clearly legal by the written rules, only to be told "you've wasted your time and money, we're not going to let that run no matter what the rule book says."

cheers,
Michael

[Michael Moore]

Anyway, questions of fairings and rule book writing aside, I'm still interested in what AHRMA is actually enforcing at the races for external adjusters on dampers for both RR and MX. I've got bikes that need to be built and dampers that need to be purchased for them and I don't want to get caught out by taking the rules as being "obvious" if they really aren't. I've been burned by AHRMA rule changes before, so I'm twice shy now.



cheers,
Michael

[phantom309]

Michael, its imposible to cover everything.Most people know what they can do and what they can't. I saw a old duc single at grattan with a belt drive top end on it, yup you got it, a protest was files and it was d-q ed. the rules work just fine , I have been in both side of the fence. Had my thruxton tore down at daytona but the rules read ahrma has the right to look at any one bike. There is more to that story but no time now:-) I don't fault you for trying to improve the rules but we have way to many cry babies that you could remove the fairing and its not going to make any differance. I just put in a rule chang to change the starts to no movement after I got screwed at grattan for a jump start 4 laps later:-) How can you tell if 20 bikes back wheels didn't move past the line by the time the green is dropped. Ahrma Is on the rod to recovery now and im looking forward to it.

[ChuckS]

Michael - my observation in RR, at least in the classes I've run, is no external adjusters on front suspension.
Hence Cosentino engineering's nifty adaptation of modern adjustable suspension bits into old fully covered front forks, race tech's emulators, etc. Maybe you would have a case in vintage superbike, as it's pre-82, but in the older stuff we hide'em.

[Michael Moore]

Chuck, I'm doing one of Chris' conversions on some Cerianis for a friend. We're expecting a noticeable improvement. I can't think of any 68 and earlier teleforks with external adjusters at the moment, but there were spring/damper assemblies that had them.

Every bike out there in a vintage class has two rear dampers. There's a number of reasonably priced dampers with adjustments and in any event the adjusters can't be seen from trackside as the bikes go whizzing past, nor are they terribly obvious in the pits. It isn't like AHRMA doesn't already have "that may be vintage but it doesn't feel vintage so we are excluding it" rules as well as "we know it isn't vintage, but we think it seems vintage so it is OK" where very out of period bikes are deemed "vintage" .

The rule book doesn't specifically say the adjusters are illegal, and since they were commercially available during the period it would seem they are legal per the rule book wording.

But will adjusters get you grief from the powers that be, or not? It seems like the issue must have come up by now. Keep in mind that I'm talking period-legal for mid60s and later bikes, not pre51. I think that the AHRMA volunteers and employees act with good will and intentions, but there's enough history of the rule book not being transparently enforced to make me want some assurance as to the actual practice.

Tim, I think I've been an AHRMA member for about 24/25 years now. If I were old enough to qualify I'd be purchasing one of those lifetime memberships. I'd really like for AHRMA to put the last few years well behind the organization and to grow and improve in the future.

It seems like part of the agreement we enter into when we join and get a competition license is that we'll race by AHRMA's rules, and AHRMA will enforce the rules fairly. Everyone gets a rule book, ignorance of the rules is no excuse -- as long as the rule book is enforced as it is written. If you can't count on the rules being the rules then no one has a clue what is or isn't OK when you roll onto the grid.

No, you can't think of everything in advance. I presume that is why AHRMA solicits rule changes every year, so they can resolve gray areas, editing mistakes and "oops, we really intended it to mean something other than what it says" issues. In some cases the best rule is the least rule. I think that engine rules should be a straight "this many CCs, what you put inside that we can't see is fine by us". If they want to limit a class to 5 speeds or a specific carb, you don't have to open the engine to see if it meets the rule. If that Duc single had a home-grown chain-drive DOHC conversion I'd be all for that being legal, because that's 80+ year old technology and there's a long history of individuals building their own GP bikes and engines (REG, Marsh V8, Patons, SOHC/DOHC Aermacchis and Motobis,etc)

But once the rule is in the book both the organization and the competitors are supposed to follow it until it is changed in the prescribed fashion. People who decide that they can ignore rules, or impose rules that haven't been agreed to, are out of line and they need to be brought back into line. After all, they voluntarily joined the organization and agreed to follow the rules. If people get used to the idea that some of the rules are toothless, then they might start deciding that they'll add a few more rules that "no one really means seriously" to their list of rules to ignore. It sure seems to work that way in "real" life away from the track.

I may have to make another attempt on the fairing rule changes, but this time a formal "mail in some paper" submission of with lots of illustrative pictures, 8x10 color glossies with writing on the back, etc. Email doesn't seem to have been an appropriate way to bring things to AHRMA's attention.

cheers,
Michael

[Junk Yard Dawg]

Progressive was a AHRMA sponser in the past, and their dual rear shocks had a rebound adjuster as standard on their high end shocks. They were legal, as I won a pair, and asked John Goodpaster if I could run them, he said yes. Now, the whole deal with racers putting internal adjusters inside their forks for easy between races to adjust the forks is also widespread.
I do not care, as long as the basic fork or shock is within the rules for period build, or aftermarket replica. Fork/shock size and period appearance is important, but improving the function of these units is okay with me. Having good safe forks/shocks, and brakes is important. I run a more modern front brake master cylinder. I feel running a 35 year old crusty master cylinder is not safe for me or others. Modern ignitions, fork internals, pistons, rods , clutches, bearings, all add to the safety and also reliability of vintage racers. If we all run 30-40 year old parts, there will be big issues.

Junk Yard Dawg
John Ellis
F750
5X

[beezalex]

Hell, most of the Pre-40 and Class C guys run externally adjustable front dampers....so they MUST be legal

[Michael Moore]

Thanks for the additional comments. If a PH Dell'Orto or big Mikuni can be legally run on a 500 Premier bike, I have trouble seeing how an inconspicuous adjuster knob or screw on a suspension unit (front or rear) is going to ruin vintage racing as we know it. I recall seeing a Vincent Comet in the pits at Willow Springs last year that had a big O2 sensor bung in the headpipe and I don't recall hearing about any big hassle over that. It is easy to walk through the pits and pick out anachronistic parts on different bikes that no one ever complains about. Aluminum damper bodies aren't a rule violation, but I don't recall seeing any of those in period photographs of Manxes and G50s, though they are quite common on those bikes now. They should at least be required to paint them black so as to present a period image.

The 35mm Ceriani RR forks I'm putting a Cosentino kit into came with an external damping adjuster -- a rod went from a hex head on the fork cap down into the damper rod where it could turn a barrel to expose different size orifices. However, even after making a new damper part with much bigger orifices it still has pretty poor action because it's just not a good damper rod design. I'd disabled the adjuster but I had to block the hole in the cap, so what did I do? I put a bolt in the cap, and the head of the bolt looks just like the adjuster did. It looks the same, it just isn't an adjuster. If adjusters are going to be forbidden I suppose I could glue non-functional knobs all over the suspension so it looks just like it came off Rossi's Yamaha, and that would be be fine.

There are certainly some reasonable people on the different eligibility committees. But there have been instances in the past (where I hope they will stay) where there's been conflicting decisions between the committees and the rule book. If external adjusters are clearly being accepted as the rule book indicates they should, then there's no problem and I can use an assortment of dampers for some of my vintage projects without wondering if I'm going to get (incorrectly) fussed at by someone.

I'd rather see someone have an adjuster and maybe be able to quickly tune out some chatter than to see them go out and have an incident when the chatter gets out of control in a corner. The possibility that they might move up from 20th to 19th place by being able to fix the problem without taking the damper apart doesn't seem like it is much of a concern

cheers,
Michael

[Reese Dengler]

..............Are external adjusters any kind of issue in either RR or MX? ...............................cheers,
Michael

Michael:

As I recall the old Koni dampers of the early 70's had external damping adjustment. Seems to me you could remove the shock eye from the Shaft, then with the bumper removed you could push the shaft all the way to the bottom and rotate to get Soft, Medium, or Hard damping, (rebound damping as I recall). This was technically an external damping adjustment in the vintage era.

Reese

[Michael Moore]

Hi Reese,

I might even have a Koni flyer that discusses that filed away. I think Koni said it was to compensate for wear as they came in the soft position and you could only go stiffer on the overall damping rate..

Of course, that doesn't stand out like someone might think an adjuster knob does.

I'll have to troll through my old magazines and see when the Arnaco 2ND dampers came out in the early 1970s. That would be additional evidence to what I have that shows that from 1967 aluminum-body dampers with separate external adjusters for both rebound and compression were commercially available (with the same dampers still being made for sale now).

I wonder if a drain plug that lets you change the oil in your forks or rear dampers to a different viscosity constitutes an external adjuster?

cheers,
Michael

[limy_1]

Hi Micheal,

While your discussion on shocks, dampers & fairings is all and good the rulebook is what it is.
We have past the time for submitting rule changes even if it is just for clearification.

While something may be illegal only those who race with that person can protest that bike and only in the
time frame established after the race was run ie. 30 minutes after the results are posted.

I have seen a visual protest made over a non-performance item that was upheld because of the wording in the rule book.

Between now and the next time rule proposals are asked for all I can say is talk to the tech director for what ever
disiplene you race in before you build and then run what you brung.

[Gordon Smith]

Michael, Roger, et. al.

Back in the dark ages when John G. was Referee and I was Tech Inspector, this was beaten to death for RR. The final decision was that externally adjustable rear shocks were legal if they could not be adjusted on the fly. The prime example would be the Koni externally adj. shocks that had the dial in the top of the shock and didn't have to be removed to be adjusted. I would defy you to adjust them from the saddle.

I don't know what the current ruling might be ten years later. You might want to check with Gil Vallencourt, he is pretty knowledgeable about this sort of thing.

[Michael Moore]

Hi Gordon,

thanks for that info. John always seemed to me to be a pretty sensible person.

I'm not sure why there'd be a concern about things being adjustable while riding -- Bowden control cables and levers let you adjust things like the timing on a magneto while you are in motion and that technology predates the mid 1960s by quite a long time. If someone wanted to Rube Goldberg (or Heath Robinson) a suspension adjusting lever alongside their advance/retard lever, then they should be able to go for it since that's really outside the issue. If something is adjustable externally (legally) then whether you use a screwdriver, knob or custom external adjusting spanner should be moot. Some GP 2T engines of the early/mid 60s had air mixture levers on the bars that were used to adjust the carburettor tuning during the race and most clutch and brake hand levers have adjustments that can be used while in motion.

Roger, I think part of my issue is that I think the rule book is clearly worded, I've got evidence that a certain technology was commercially available during the period, and it seems like I should not need to go to an AHRMA official to ask "this is what the rule book says, does it really say that?" I see your point that if I go and ask and they say "yes, you correctly read the plain English in the rule book" then they may have a little difficulty in later saying "no, that's not what it says."

It may come down to a question of whether or not I can trust the rule book to mean what it says. On one hand I can think that the hard-working volunteers who wrote the rule book can be trusted to have written what they meant and mean what they wrote and that I can take the rule book at face value. On the other hand I can think that in spite of what the rule book says, someone is likely to take exception to both the rule book wording and the evidence of period commercial availability, and raise a fuss because the facts don't meet their concept of "vintage legal."

Do I show trust and not ask for reassurance, or not trust and make it clear that I don't by asking? I suppose I could take a "trust but verify" attitude but that seems likely to waste lots of people's time when I start going through the rule book line by line to ask if each line really means what it says.

As to the protest rule I found

6.3.2 Protest Procedures: All protests must be initiated in writing. Visual and scoring protests may be initiated by a person in the same race or moto as the machine and/or rider being protested. An internal protest may be initiated only by a person in the same category and displacement class as the machine and/or rider being protested.

(bolding added by me)

I note the difference between internal engine protests and visual protests with internal protests being made "only" by someone entered in the same class/race. It appears to me that with a "if it isn't clearly prohibited it is legal" reading of 6.3.2 it does not necessarily preclude any AHRMA competition member who sees an eligibility violation on any bike that is entered at an event from paying $10 and filing a written protest for a visual inspection by the eligibility scrutineer/race director.

That could make for some interesting times.

cheers,
Michael

[swooshdave]

I'm glad that you're concerned about building bikes that will be running at the front of the pack. Because if they end up anywhere else no one will ever say a thing.

[Michael Moore]

Hi Dave,

I'm hoping to drag the Sherpa T home to work on soon. Maybe I can get it sorted out and make an event or two this fall.


Building a legal bike makes sense to me. Why build something that can be easily DQ'd on the off chance that everyone else breaks and I find myself getting a trophy?

A lot of effort has gone into writing the AHRMA rule book. It costs AHRMA money to send a copy out to every member each year. A lot of people go to no small effort and expense to build bikes that are legal under the rules . My guess is that is all being done because there's some expectation that people will actually follow the rules. If the rule book were only advisory we could avoid all the extra work/expense and do away with it and change the organization name to "run whatever old bike you've got racing association".

cheers,
Michael

[grandpaul]

Don't mention the "good old boys", "wink & a nod" rule.

From what I've read here on this forum, there are some riders that can run what they want and won't be refused.

I can't remember names, so you'll have to search, but it sure sounds like a miserable "old guard remnant" situation.

[SteveThompson]

Do I understand this correctly?

Now there are TWO guys who don't race much or win much bitching about rules details when a member of one of the rules committees has already told them how to get the answers.

[Michael Moore]

Hi Steve,

Over a 40 year spread it can be difficult to race every race every season, especially if you want to compete in 3 different disciplines. Some years you've got lots of time/money/energy and no major projects, other times there always seems to be something getting in the way of going to the track.

Do the rules apply to everyone or is there an exception for people who win (or don't) or who race all season long (or every few seasons)?

I'm a rules kind of person. I like the idea of a rule book that is written clearly enough that any racer can pick it up and know if their bike will or won't meet the rule without having to contact an official. I also like the idea of a rule that appears to be clear not being subject to an interpretation that may vary from person to person, or being applied to one person and not another.

I think Joe or Jane Last Place Everytime Racer should be on a bike that is 100% in compliance with the rules every time they get on the track, just like Joe or Jane Wins Everytime Racer should. Do you think that is a bad idea? It sure sounds like some people think that almost anything goes if you aren't collecting trophies regularly (or on the other hand if you win all the time you should get a bit more leeway than others).

I don't expect any favors and I don't expect any hassles. I feel it is reasonable to expect clear rules clearly enforced. If a rule is a bit murky or flat out bad, I'd like to see some acknowledgement of that and an honest attempt made to rectify the situation.

Club racing can be run in just as professional a fashion as pro racing, all it takes is a decision on the part of the people to do that. AHRMA has had its ups and downs over the years. I've been trying to get a feel which part of the cycle it is in now.

cheers,
Michael

[grandpaul]

1. My comment didn't involve the class I run in, in this case.

2. The same comment involved WINNING bikes, not also-rans.

3. Same comment referred to a different person posting on this forum, making the claim and backing it up.

Sorry I don't remember where it was or who said it, but it'll come up in an advanced serach if you look hard enough.

Steve, I think I made your "give a crap" meter needle bounce just a tad higher! That's a suprise.