Pre90 Machine Eligibility

[BAHNZY]

According to the 2015 Manual of Motorcycle Sport;
16.15.14.1 Acceptable for the pre 90 class are machines and components built up to and including the 1989 model.
The only exception to this rule is where the model remains unaltered after this date.

Question: 
1. To what point is a bike deemed un-altered between two model years? Must it be identical save for graphics and a colour change?

2. How many cosmetic or minor changes to a year model tip the scale to make it ineligible?
Example:
The ABC motorcycle company produced bike/s in 1989 & 1990. For the most part the frame (& its geometry), the engine cases and internals, suspension speciation i.e. 40mm conventional forks and the main components of the bike were common however the bike received some minor upgrades such as;
The 1989 model had a Kayaba rear shock, a 38mm flat slide Keihen & a Nissan front brake calliper with a 260mm disc
But the 1990 model had a Showa rear shock, a 40mm flat slide Mikuni & a Brembo front brake calliper with a 260mm disc

3. Can a 1990 model (or later) machine be retrofitted to bring it back to a 1989 specification?
Example:
I see 1990 KX500’s that have had 1988/89 conventional forks retrofitted and run without issue in the Pre90 class
 
Please don’t turn this into another RM foot peg thread, it a fairly simple question that I and others have pondered on.

[Nathan S]

Like so many things, the rules are too vague for a definitive answer without going through the full MA judicial process, but here's a start:

1 & 2. If the changes are cosmetic, then they are irrelevant.
If the changes are to components that are free, then they are irrelevant.

In the case of your 89 vs 90 example, if the Brembo caliper and Mikuni flat slide existed as 89 model parts, then they'd be acceptable. The shock is irrelevant, because there's no restriction on later model shocks.

3. It's fine to back-spec a 2004 KX500 to 89 spec. The frame, engine, etc are all carry-over parts. The 2004 model parts that are different (forks, brakes, swingarm) must be changed back to the older parts.


-------
The above is using the generally accepted freedoms and restrictions - not all of which are actually part of the 2015 rule book....

[sa63]

what is the consensus on cr500s? Apart from suspension changes 89-01 are pretty much identical.
Does retro fitting a 89 or earlier front end bring it in line?
I have seen in the USA kx500s and cr5s are regarded as ok in the pre 90 equivalent class.

[KTM47]

Like so many things, the rules are too vague for a definitive answer without going through the full MA judicial process, but here's a start:

1 & 2. If the changes are cosmetic, then they are irrelevant.
If the changes are to components that are free, then they are irrelevant.

In the case of your 89 vs 90 example, if the Brembo caliper and Mikuni flat slide existed as 89 model parts, then they'd be acceptable. The shock is irrelevant, because there's no restriction on later model shocks.

3. It's fine to back-spec a 2004 KX500 to 89 spec. The frame, engine, etc are all carry-over parts. The 2004 model parts that are different (forks, brakes, swingarm) must be changed back to the older parts.


-------
The above is using the generally accepted freedoms and restrictions - not all of which are actually part of the 2015 rule book....

Nathan. You amaze me. It has clearly been established that unless MA via the commission say a bike is a carry over model it is not. Ask MA.

A bike is only a carry over model if it is listed in the MOMS as such.

ASK MA not the forum!!!

[Nathan S]

Like so many things, the rules are too vague for a definitive answer without going through the full MA judicial process, but here's a start:

1 & 2. If the changes are cosmetic, then they are irrelevant.
If the changes are to components that are free, then they are irrelevant.

In the case of your 89 vs 90 example, if the Brembo caliper and Mikuni flat slide existed as 89 model parts, then they'd be acceptable. The shock is irrelevant, because there's no restriction on later model shocks.

3. It's fine to back-spec a 2004 KX500 to 89 spec. The frame, engine, etc are all carry-over parts. The 2004 model parts that are different (forks, brakes, swingarm) must be changed back to the older parts.


-------
The above is using the generally accepted freedoms and restrictions - not all of which are actually part of the 2015 rule book....

Nathan. You amaze me. It has clearly been established that unless MA via the commission say a bike is a carry over model it is not. Ask MA.

A bike is only a carry over model if it is listed in the MOMS as such.

ASK MA not the forum!!!

What about components?

Why does 16.15.14.1 read the way it does, if there are no Pre-90 carry overs?
Noting the relationship between 16.15.11.1 and 16.15.11.8...

And once again: properly written rules don't require people to ask MA. Properly written rules can be understood by anyone, without further questions, secret handshakes, or any of that guff.

[John Orchard]

Not sure if everyone is aware of the MOMS rule 2.5.10.1

Eligibility Scrutineer

"An eligibility scrutineer is a person appointed by the RCB or the promoter at a meeting comprising of events for historic or classic machines. The eligibility scrutineer has the authority to determine whether entered machines comply with the relevant eligibility regulations."

(EDITED)

[KTM47]

The fact that Pre 70, Pre 75 & Pre 78 does have rules that state which models are acceptable follow on models in my opinion means that unless for the other section similar follow on models are stated they are not permitted.

This does not me that they can't be approved, but until MA does so (in my opinion) they are not approved.

ASK MA

[Nathan S]

<Snip>

Look, all of this shit goes away if the rules are clear. ALL of these discussions will very quickly wither and die, if the average punter can pick up the rule book and understand the rules.

That's all we need to make it all go away.

It's not like Bahnzy is a new-comer on the fringes of the sport, either.

[Bamford#69]

Hi, with all the problems with regards to age based eligibility maybe we should be discussing   guide lines for future classes, and maybe they  should be technology based, as no real major  advances have happened for a while,
 maybe something   along the lines of ; ,Conventional forks, or  USD forks ,or steel frames,or alloy frames ,or two stroke or  four stroke, Big four strokes and small two strokes combined ,  or fuel injected engines or any combinations of any of these technologies, a bit like the idea of  Evo  ,  not having an age basis for a class would allow  those people who want to " reverse engineer" to make their idea of what is a "flow on model" to be allowed for that cut off date/technology
 
  and very soon we will need to accommodate all these older four strokes that are going to be included in Vmx 
I'm just saying,
cheers

[Graeme M]

Just so's you know what happened here.

I have previously made it clear that this sort of personal stuff and pointless back and forth is no longer welcome on the forum. The original question was reasonable, and would seem worthy of discussion.

So let's keep it to that. I am now going to delete all comments that breach my idea of what the forum is about. If you wish tom contribute to the thread and the original question, please do by addressing the facts with no personal opinion about people or motivations chucked in.

[Nathan S]

Hi, with all the problems with regards to age based eligibility maybe we should be discussing   guide lines for future classes, and maybe they  should be technology based, as no real major  advances have happened for a while,
 maybe something   along the lines of ; ,Conventional forks, or  USD forks ,or steel frames,or alloy frames ,or two stroke or  four stroke, Big four strokes and small two strokes combined ,  or fuel injected engines or any combinations of any of these technologies, a bit like the idea of  Evo  ,  not having an age basis for a class would allow  those people who want to " reverse engineer" to make their idea of what is a "flow on model" to be allowed for that cut off date/technology
 
  and very soon we will need to accommodate all these older four strokes that are going to be included in Vmx 
I'm just saying,
cheers

Good post.
IMO, we have three basic choices:
1. Use year cut-offs every half decade. Pre-60, Pre-65, Pre-70, etc.
2. Use year cuts offs that best correspond to technological eras. Pre-75, Pre-78, Pre-81, Pre-86, etc.
3. Use technology cut-offs, like Evo.

Currently, we have a mix of all three approaches - which is a big part of why there's so much confusion and uncertainty about what the rules are trying to achieve.

Personally, I think #2 is the best answer. Not the perfect answer: the best answer.

[KTM47]

I love the way your preferred option leave the most successful EVO class bike in Pre 85.

It is too late to start this debate now.  The time limit for rule change submissions for 2016 MOMS has passed.

However I do think if someone sent something in asking for models of bikes to be recognised as follow on models, there is a chance they might be considered.

Please remember in my opinion "follow on models" are those that haven't changed greatly eg new graphics.  The best example of this from what I have been told is the 1990 model YZ 490 and possibly 91 as well.

[Nathan S]

It's remarkable that the Germans had the foresight to design a bike to be the best in a VMX class that wouldn't exist for another decade and a half...

We're pretty much stuck with what we have now - bikes have been bought and/or built to meet the current rules. Changing them significantly now would leave a lot of very unhappy punters.

[KTM47]

Exactly.  But we do need to clarify some things and maybe legitimism some things that have been let go.

Either way things need to change so that there is more than one person able to be eligibility scrutineer.

[Rossvickicampbell]

Nathan - need to be careful with #2 - don't want to disperse current number of available bikes into too many separate classes?