Noel: Fernando said I can't race the postie! :o

[Nathan S]

I am unaware of the situations that "slap us in the face every couple of months". I'm sure we'd all like to know what the problem bikes are. To enlighten us can you list the problem bikes and why they are anomalies please Nathan?

How do you think the rulebook can be inmproved Nathan? You've spent a lot of time over the last year or so sprouting your worries on our imperfect eligibility criteria so using the ample space available on this forum, give us a hint on your for a better rulebook. I'm the first to admit that there are some eligibility issues that need to be addressed so your suggestions might just be the catalyst for a new, more democratic eligibility criteria.
This isn't a sarcastic pisstake. I'm quite serious about hearing Nathans ideas on improving the breed.

Without bothering to think of the examples overly thoroughly, the following legitimate questions have been on these forums in the last year or two, and their answers were not in the rule-book. They were typically answered through the knowledge of the other forum members - but in many cases, the answers given were nothing more than opinions and/or interpretations.

What do the Evo rules mean!?
How new can an Evo bike be if it meets the three criteria?
Is a 75 CR125 a carry-over bike?
Is a 75 TM250 a carry-over bike?
What's the story behind Vern Grayson's bike/Is it legal or not?
What's an MX400A, and is it pre-75 legal?
Where do the rules exempt pre-78 (and later) bikes from 18.5.0.8a, b and c?
Is a round section swing arm OK on a DT1/RT1 racing in pre-70?
Which 77 models are not eligible for pre-78 (as per 18.7.6)?
Can I change my handlebars to a modern type?
Is there a restriction on paint/plastic colours?
Do I have to use a certain type of wheel rim on my pre-70/pre-75 bike?
Are remote reservoir shock absorbers allowed on pre-78 (and later) bikes?

I'm sure there's more, but you get the point. To be fair, most of them weren't 'arse biting' episodes, but then again there's more than one every couple of months there...
A well written set of rules

The fixes are relatively easy:

1. List the parts that are considered to be major components (ie: the bits that define the bike as being of its era - frames, engine cases and forks vs lever assemblies, tyres and rims);

2. Re-format it so that the later classes are not just 'add-ons' to the original pre-75 classes. This can be done either by listing the common-to-all-era rules at the start and then have separate sub-sections for the individual eras' specific rules, or by incorporating them into the original format;

3. Make a blanket statement that either says "No modifications to major components are allowed unless permitted by these regs" or "Any modification is allowed unless otherwise prohibited by these regs". Ka-pow, you've killed all of the grey areas that create confusion/angst/protests/inadvertent cheats/deliberate cheats.
Alternatively, list each component and the mods/replacement available to it (but this is probably too laborious).

4. Clearly define what is an acceptable replica of a major component.

5. Make it clear whether the lists of acceptable bikes is 'some of the acceptable bikes', 'the ones you don't need to prove' or 'all of the acceptable bikes'. 18.9.0.3 (the equivalent list for sidecars) makes it clear (in that case its 'the ones you don't need to prove').

There's a lot of other small detail things too, but that's the meat of it.


I'm not trying to change the intent of any of the rules - in fact, the opposite is true. I simply want both the intent and boundaries to be clear to everyone with basic comprehension skills, without have to resort to finding and asking people who are 'in the know'.
 
Firko seems keen to take personal offence whenever I criticise 'his' rules, but whatever - it's certainly not my intention.
You'll notice that most of my suggested solutions relate to the alterations to the original regs (addition of pre-78 and Evo, for a start).

Simple version for those with short attention spans:
The rules as they stand are like an old weatherboard house, that's been extended with fibro in the past.
There comes a time when every house gets run down, and needs a spruce up.
Sure, you can keep living in the house with the peeling paint and the leaky taps, but nobody chooses to live in a run-down house simply because it was the best house around when it was first built.

[magoo]

I've got the answer to all our problems. Nominations are open for the Vintage Dirt Sports Commission in N.S.W. and there are a couple of vacancies. I nominate Nathan to stand on the commission so he can rectify all that is wrong with our sport.

Do I hear a seconder?

Yes, Mr Firkin. Carried. Your application is accepted Nathan now let's get on with it and rectify all that is evil in this god damned mess.

Our first meeting will be in a couple of weeks so we'll see you there.

Thank you and good night!!!!!

[Noel]

As My name heads this thread I feel the need to respond,

Unfortunate as it may be this is not a piss take thread

I am a teenager of the 70's, Rodger D being the name that was the Hero of my day,I rode home made mini bikes with mower motors,Gemini's then TM75,  Deckson eagles  etc.  at mini bike club , spent Holidays on Uncles farm fixing  and riding CT90's ,S90's .Did not race motor cross but went to Amaroo to watch the Mister motorcross series .
once I got my license I rarely rode dirt bikes,but owned road bikes.
when my kids were in their  teens and living in the suburbs we started going out to the mountains
with some like minded people and having social days ripping around paddocks  on postie bikes ,
as a Fitter Machinist  I could also perform modifications
 to cut the story short I ended up with a Garage full of modified postie bikes,
Kids move on
Did not know VMX existed,
While on the computer I turned up a web site promoting Vintage MX meeting "Crawford river Classic "
And read up on regs, they had a class that read.

 Evo "air cooled drum brakes non Linkage suspension " and at the time I read it " no year cut off dates"

I also had in the garage my commuter bike , an '82  DR250  Suzuki.
I entered a  modified postie  bored to 113cc and other internal engine mods with CR 80 forks and laided down shocks in evo 125
and the DR in pre 85.
the organisers did not tell me to piss off, they thought about the postie and thought that it fitted better in pre 78 125, as it probably had about five inches off rear wheel travel and 7 of front.
I had a ball that weekend and was made to feel welcome.
By the next club meeting I had found my self a "77  Honda CR125 ( yes you can see how uneducated I am)
and retired the Evo Postie,and set about finding a pre 75 bike
I also notice that pre 70 seemed to be struggling for entries.
my resources indicated that the postie frame had not changed since 1968,
in 1968 CT90 had 4 speed gear box with an over lay rear sprocket
in 1969 the CT 90 introduced  telescopic front forks with external springs( which as far as I could tell were Identical to the CT110 till after 1995) "clymer manual".
I had in the garage a motor that the major hot up component was a high top piston from a 1962 CB72 250 Honda" night mare "
It allowed 14;1 compression on methanol in a  bored out postie motor ,
with shocks in standard position ,maybe 3" of travel and external sprung forks ,3 1/2", a frame and engine that was 60's design
I entered this bike in pre 70 which in some cases put enough bikes on the grid for them to run as a class,

when the pre 75 meeting at Nepean was pleading for entries I took this bike as well as a budget pre 75 bike I had built
to this meeting

It has not been my intention to change the face of VMX or build a cheater bike,

I tried to  enter into what I perceived to be  the spirit ,

At no events that I have taken the posties have I personally  had negative responses
some people have even enjoyed watching me fight them around the track, and I have had fun riding them,

I do not really know Hessam although I have most likely met him in passing,
He posted here late last year and I have had  correspondence  with him and  suggested  he may be able to ride the postie at club events
Trying to encourage new people to  VMX.

No the postie does not have a history in Motorcross but probably a history in the introduction  of people to dirt bikes.

cheers
Noel

[Nathan S]

...
I nominate Nathan to stand on the commission so he can rectify all that is wrong with our sport.
...

 
I've never claimed that I can fix it all.
Rectifying the political maneuvering, the cliques, the grudges, the NIH factor, etc are way, waaay beyond my skill-set.

[Graeme M]

You know, I decided to finally sit down and read the rules as per the MoMS and although I completely understand the intent of the rules I think we do need some sort of over riding year cutoff. Maybe I don't get it, but I really believe Vintage MX is about getting an old bike, restoring it and racing it. Buying a modern replica of a frame is a little bit outside of that but I guess acceptable on the grounds the engines and other parts are originally of the period. A 2003 model simply is not a vintage motorbike, regardless of how much it looks like a 1973 model.

The relevant rules ARE a little vague on this point. As well, it isn't entirely clear which rule applies when.

For example, 18.2.2 does not include Evo or Pre 85 as a class, yet this is the 'umbrella' class rule for classic MX as a whole. Evo is defined later in 18.7.11 yet it is not a recognised class according to 18.2.2, and further it discusses components as being 'of the period' without there being any reference to what that period is.

All classes excepting Evo do have the follow on rule, yet in all classes other than Pre 78 and Pre 85 that rule is part of the table of machines clause and by my reading only those models identified in those tables may qualify, whether or not the follow on rule is invoked. Pre 78s on the other hand include the follow on rule in the more general preamble, and it is not clear whether the class is or is not limited to those machines in the table. Pre 85s have no limitations of any kind beyond the year cutoff and the follow on rule is applied.

The simple answer beyond a more complete rewrite is to include a year cutoff, or perhaps more exactly defining 'Classic MX' up front as being a class of racing in which the machine must have been manufactured prior to 1985, or in the case of replica frames that the frame is an exact replica of a frame within the year cutoff using an original engine from that period.

Again, I don't really think we need to worry that much as I will be serving a writ upon Nathan asking him to show cause as to why he should continue to be accepted into the ranks of the VMX Brotherhood and I doubt he'll be able to convince us satisfactorily. Additionally, I have a written affidavit from Honda Motor Corp which quite clearly states that they view a CT110 as being a thoroughly modern motorcycle representative of the full grandeur of Honda's technical innovation and hence it cannot be viewed as 'vintage'.

[firko]

Now wasn't that easy Nathan. Your submissions are valid and make sense, if a little pedantic in places. Now all you have to do is nominate for a position on a comittee and table them or lobby someone already on the comittee to fight your case to have them introduced. This, of course must be done through your club.

I don't regard the rules as my rules, they are our rules. It's just that as one of the formulators and the only one who uses this forum (besides an occasional visit from Drakie) I felt it my duty to defend them when they are criticised without an alternative being offered. If you knew how much work went into the rules and how much opposition we originally copped from MA you too would be defensive.

I've just gone over the MA Manuals from 2000, 2001, 2005 (cant find 2007) and must admit that many of the definitions originally included have disappeared over the years. Formerly 'Major Components' were listed as frame, engine, brake hubs and forks but it has gone from today's rules. Below now are my interpitations based on my experience as an eligibility scrutineer using (from memory) definitions now missing from the MA manual.

What do the Evo rules mean!?
That is too abstract a question to answer here except for the usual 'No linkage, air cooled, drum brakes' criteria and adding that 'all major components, ie: Frame/swingarm, engine brakes and forks, must be from the same era or older. Of course that needs further explanation but you hopefully get my drift
How new can an Evo bike be if it meets the three criteria?
Not defined.
Is a 75 CR125 a carry-over bike?
There was once a list of flow on models for all of the eras but it's gone missing over the years as well. The '75 CR125 was considered a flow on but since the introduction of pre 78 it is included in that criteria.
Is a 75 TM250 a carry-over bike?
Same answer as for the CR125
What's the story behind Vern Grayson's bike/Is it legal or not?
Short answer..Legal for pre 70, illegal for pre 65. If that bike showed up today with a different owner it would most likely pass scrutineering for pre 65. The politics involved in that case prevent a simple answer.
What's an MX400A, and is it pre-75 legal?
No such bike
Where do the rules exempt pre-78 (and later) bikes from 18.5.0.8a, b and c?
Can't find current rule book

Is a round section swing arm OK on a DT1/RT1 racing in pre-70?
No. Once again the section has gone from the rulebook but the swingarm is considered a major component so therefore being pre 70 it must be a square section.
Which 77 models are not eligible for pre-78 (as per 18.7.6)?
Can I change my handlebars to a modern type?
I presume you mean pre taper style bars. Yes
Is there a restriction on paint/plastic colours?
That's a silly one. Of course not. I had a Pink Maico in 1990!
Do I have to use a certain type of wheel rim on my pre-70/pre-75 bike?
No, a wheel rim is not considered a major component
Are remote reservoir shock absorbers allowed on pre-78 (and later) bikes?
Yes.

Now, after perusing some of the recent rulebooks I realise that much of what was originally in the book has been removed. I hadn't closely looked at the book for years so I now realise why you are so pedantic. The stuffs not there. However in defence of whoever took the stuff out, perhaps that was their way of streamlining the criteria. Who knows. If all of the fiddly stuff you propose was included it would tend to overcomplicate the book possibly making it harder to understand. There are only so many pages we can use and if you checked you'd find that we have the largest section in the book already. Common sense covers many of the questions you raise.

I agree that the rulebook has suffered some damage in time and I had neglected to check because I hadn't needed to with my bikes, which raises a valid point. I am currently building two bikes, as is my mate Alan. All of these bikes are high end specials with many components from different parent bikes and manufacturers. We have built our bikes without the need for a highly defined rule book (or a rule book at all actually) as we are using common sense and a bit of historical research to build the bikes to an era, pre 65 and pre 70 in my case. You are welcome to go over both bikes at CD5 and will see that there are no dodgy out of era items used. Research and honesty are better tools than an overly defined rulebook.

In closing, you make some good points that need adressing but to continually whinge about it and raise obscure hypothetical points to 'prove' your point is annoying. You've now put your concerns on paper and if you are serious you will follow through and try to have them ratified. If you don't it'll be obvious that you are only raising this as a cheeky shit stir and are not as serious abour righting the supposed wrongs as you claim.

[GMC]

What do the Evo rules mean!?
18.7.12.3
No linkage suspension
No disc brakes
No water cooling
How confusing can that be?

How new can an Evo bike be if it meets the three criteria?
Yes, this isn’t defined which is why we are having this debate

Is a 75 CR125 a carry-over bike?
18.7.5.1  Acceptable for the  pre 75 class are machines built up to & including 74 models. The only exception to this rule is where the model remains unaltered after this date
Probably should be defined better.

Is a 75 TM250 a carry-over bike?
18.7.5.1  Acceptable for the  pre 75 class are machines built up to & including 74 models. The only exception to this rule is where the model remains unaltered after this date.
Probably should be defined better.

What's the story behind Vern Grayson's bike/Is it legal or not?
As I recall this was all about the change from single to twin front down tubes.
18.7.1.1  re: BSA single down tube only

What's an MX400A, and is it pre-75 legal?
If you think it is prove it & you can ride it

Where do the rules exempt pre-78 (and later) bikes from 18.5.0.8a, b and c?
Some paragraphs need rearranging to other chapters

Is a round section swing arm OK on a DT1/RT1 racing in pre-70?
18.7.4.1 re Yamaha AT1 DT1 CT1 rectangular swingarm

Which 77 models are not eligible for pre-78 (as per 18.7.6)?
Which pre 78 models can you think of that aren’t listed in 18.7.8.1 & 18.7.9.1 &18.7.10.1
Some models came out with more than 9” travel & so the rules state that suspension must be restricted

Can I change my handlebars to a modern type?
Nothing says you can’t, to list every possible accessory would make the book 3 times as thick

Is there a restriction on paint/plastic colours?
Surely you can’t be serious???

Do I have to use a certain type of wheel rim on my pre-70/pre-75 bike?
I can’t see anything that suggests you need to be concerned.
It only states that pre 60 alloy rims must be mud catchers 18.5.0.7


Are remote reservoir shock absorbers allowed on pre-78 (and later) bikes?
Some paragraphs in 18.4.1 need rearranging to other chapters

The fixes are relatively easy:

1. List the parts that are considered to be major components (ie: the bits that define the bike as being of its era - frames, engine cases and forks vs lever assemblies, tyres and rims);
They have already listed most of the models

2. Re-format it so that the later classes are not just 'add-ons' to the original pre-75 classes. This can be done either by listing the common-to-all-era rules at the start and then have separate sub-sections for the individual eras' specific rules, or by incorporating them into the original format;
Yes this needs to be done.

3. Make a blanket statement that either says "No modifications to major components are allowed unless permitted by these regs" or "Any modification is allowed unless otherwise prohibited by these regs". Ka-pow, you've killed all of the grey areas that create confusion/angst/protests/inadvertent cheats/deliberate cheats.
Alternatively, list each component and the mods/replacement available to it (but this is probably too laborious).
No way. Apart from clubs having to employ lawyers to write their regs you would then be up against different rules with every club you ride with. Let's keep it uniform please.

4. Clearly define what is an acceptable replica of a major component.
Must look the same. re frames see 18.5.0.1 & 18.5.0.2

5. Make it clear whether the lists of acceptable bikes is 'some of the acceptable bikes', 'the ones you don't need to prove' or 'all of the acceptable bikes'. 18.9.0.3 (the equivalent list for sidecars) makes it clear (in that case its 'the ones you don't need to prove').
The rules have been written to show what is acceptable but it has been left open ended so if you can prove it was available then you can use it.

Nathan, You have made the point before about some paragraphs being in the wrong spot, & you are right, this does need to be fixed, but I feel most of your other points are hollow.
You will get questions asked, that's what the forum is about but common sense is usually the best rule.
Meanwhile our NZ cousins wonder why we have any rules at all.

Disclaimer, All my quotes came from the 07 manual & it's late & I may have made some typo's

[DJRacing]

For christ's sake its 2 in the morning and you all have me up reading this shite.
 * Why does a 1977 model with 9" of travel get kicked out of its class? If you could buy it like that in 1977 then it should race in that period, and then you let a 1978 RM400/YZ400 do battle against the last of the twinshock Huskies and you call that fair??

The Rules for KIWI VMX.
A bikes age will be determined by it's official year of release, not the year of manufacture. Bikes that were manufactured and/or released at the end of the year prior to the official release year will be aged by the release year of that bike.
Flow on models may be considered at the organizers discretion. Individual cases will be judged by the Kiwi Vintage Motocross organizers and their decisions on individual eligibility cases is final.

*Pre 1975 but including flow on models as listed: Bultaco Mk8 Pursang & Fontera, Can-Am MXI, CCM MC500 1975, CZ all Falta replicas, Honda CR125M1-2-3, CR250M1-2, MR175-250, XL pre S model, Husqvarna 360CR Mikkola Replica 1975, Kawasaki all steel swing arm & metal tank ‘75-’76KX, KTM MC & GS ‘75, Maico MC250-400-440 1975 Yellow fiberglass tank only. Montesa VA 125-250-360 & enduro, Suzuki TM sunrise models, ‘75 RH250 & ‘75 RM125s only, SWM 1975 MC & GS, Yamaha MX250-400B, YZ125-250-400C, YZ125X & MX125C.

*Pre 1981 Eligibility, all motocross, enduro or trail bikes manufactured during the year period. Maximum number of cylinders two, no water, no disc’s and no linkages.

*Pre 1986 Eligibility, all motocross, enduro or tail bikes manufactured before 1986 with original suspension and brakes, (no parameter frame, no upside down forks).

Bikes will be classed by the latest model performance enhancing part fitted to the bike. e.g.. 1982 forks in a 1980 model bike classes the bike as a Pre 86 entrant. Your bike will be checked for eligibility at some stage during each meeting. The spirit of the class era will be enforced. Please do not put us into a situation where we have to stop you from riding in the class that you intend.

Components such as late model brake discs etc are also considered to be performance enhancing over and above what was available prior to 1986. Please ensure your bike spec is within the spirit of the era of which you are entered to race.

A bikes age will be determined by it's official year of release, not the year of manufacture. Bikes that were manufactured and/or released at the end of the year prior to the official release year will be aged by the release year of that bike.

 

Flow on models may be considered at the organizers discretion. Individual cases will be judged by the Kiwi Vintage Motocross organizers and their decisions on individual eligibility cases is final.


Components such as late model brake discs etc are also considered to be performance enhancing over and above what was available prior to 1986. Please ensure your bike spec is within the spirit of the era of which you are entered to race.


Yes I have read the MA rule book (2008)

[All Things 414]

Geezuz. 85 posts and going. This is gunna catch noise emmissions. Some up and coming barrister would be getting sweaty palms about all this. Probably think you were negotiating the boundaries for some obscure European country in the UN. Maybe I should distract you all with another picture of some shocks.........

[mboddy]

Where do the rules exempt pre-78 (and later) bikes from 18.5.0.8a, b and c?

18.7.7 Pre-1978 Classes: Technical Specifications overide 18.5.0.8.
Therefore, later classes are not bound by 18.5.0.8 either.

[Gerard De Ruyter (Twistandshout)]

bugger all the stuff about rules, i want to tell noel how much i enjoyed reading about his heritage with the postie bikes.  and how much i've enjoyed seeing him rip (ok, burble - no, rip) around various heaven tracks over the last few years - and hope that continues.  i reckon bikes of all kinds, trailies, posties you name it, should be encouraged.  they're all part of our dirt bike heritage and if it gives pleasure to the rider (and fits the hopefully decent rules), join in.  the trouble is of course we mix vintage riding with vintage racing, which brings in all sorts of tensions that would just not be present if none of it were competitive (like viper social days).  

noel, i also started off on the little hondas - a stepthru 50.  and also went to all the amaroo rounds of mr motocross.  and made that stepthru do (in my mind) all the things i saw per and hans do.  i loved it!  it got me on two wheels!

and i still think its about design rather than year - his 110 might have been stamped out this century, but the guys who actually designed it are well into retirement in sunny okinawa and never even heard of long travel suspension etc.

[Nathan S]

Geoff and Firko, thanks.

WRT the list of questions, they mostly weren't my questions. They were questions that have been presented to these forums by people who have obviously read the manual and still weren't confident to fit the parts.

The fact that your answers aren't identical shows that things could/should be cleared up. In some cases, my answers are different again...
I'm sure that - if we were in a situation where it mattered, like a protest at the Nationals - all three of us would staunchly defend our interpretations.

I actually reckon I could perform the re-write as I suggested, and end up with less words, not more. The re-write won't happen straight away (well, not if I'm doing it), but it will happen soonish, now that there's some support for the idea.

[Husky500evo]

The Kiwi rules seem a lot different from just about everywhere else in the world . Allowing a CR360 Mikkola Husky to run in pre '75 seems a bit strange, as it is virtually a works replica & would be way superior to a '74 Maico (or anything else in that class ). The CZ Falta would be a similar story in the 250 class . As the Kiwi pre '81 class seems to be the equivalent of the Oz evo class, does that meen that the '81 Maico , YZ465H & '83/4 Huskys would not be eligible ? I agree with the comment about the Oz 'pre '78 class 9 inch travel limit. The limit should be 10 inches to include every bike that was available in 1977 & the bikes should not have to be modified back to meet the lower standards of inferior models of that time. An example of a legitimate 1977 model bike that is not mentioned in the rulebook is the VB 250/360 Montesa . It has 10 inches of wheel travel, front & rear. Even the Yamaha YZ400D has 10 inches rear wheel travel , measured at the brochure.
      As for the Evo class rules in the MA rulebook, the first part :18.7.12.1 causes confusion . It states that all bikes will be O.E.M . To me , this  puts in doubt any bike that is a hybrid. I think that hybrids are interesting & should be encouraged .
      The 2003 postie bike should be legal for Evo 125 class from the way I see it , as Evo class has no year cutoff. Why you would bother is beyond me though .A 1988/9 model CZ type 514 is also legal , as it meets all the criteria.

[eno]

Good lord someone might as well have tipped a drum of fuel in here & lit it. All this fuss over a CT90/110, just ride the fuggin thing, if it was over here that poor lil' thing & rider would get so munted by our tracks You'd soon change rides. Mind you there has been times when racing in the slop I'm certain I could have gone as fast on such a thing, cooling fins would bog up quick tho.

Nathan have you ever considered getting into politics?

[TM BILL]

bugger all the stuff about rules, i want to tell noel how much i enjoyed reading about his heritage with the postie bikes.  and how much i've enjoyed seeing him rip (ok, burble - no, rip) around various heaven tracks over the last few years - and hope that continues.  i reckon bikes of all kinds, trailies, posties you name it, should be encouraged.  they're all part of our dirt bike heritage and if it gives pleasure to the rider (and fits the hopefully decent rules), join in.  the trouble is of course we mix vintage riding with vintage racing, which brings in all sorts of tensions that would just not be present if none of it were competitive (like viper social days).  

noel, i also started off on the little hondas - a stepthru 50.  and also went to all the amaroo rounds of mr motocross.  and made that stepthru do (in my mind) all the things i saw per and hans do.  i loved it!  it got me on two wheels!

and i still think its about design rather than year - his 110 might have been stamped out this century, but the guys who actually designed it are well into retirement in sunny okinawa and never even heard of long travel suspension etc.

Very well said