OzVMX Forum
Clubroom => Competition => Topic started by: gdr on October 23, 2009, 06:51:09 pm
-
Evo ultimate class whats it all about
-
Twin shock/non linkage, air cooled, drum brakes without the BS. 1985 cut off for parts. So you can use a CR480/500, KX420/500, RM465/500 etc in a twin shock chassis. NO you can't convert your CR500, KX500 or RM500 into a twin shock rear end. You can use any conventional forks which were originally fitted with drum brakes, even if they came from a single shock bike. The way EVO should be using the basic guidelines of no linkage, air cooled, drum brakes. Bring on the big bore twin shocks! Sounds good, I hope we get to see some trick bikes on the track, although I doubt I'll be riding one.
Cheers,
K
-
I think its about time the commission (ma) made some rules for this class as at is now becomming an out of control bullshit class
-
So are you saying I can take a kx500 air cooled motor and put it into a twin shocked frame and race in Ultimate evo class, but I can't put twin shocks on the same kx 500 frame to race the same class?
-
Im hopping viper has nothing to do with this rubbish
-
I think its about time the commission (ma) made some rules for this class as at is now becomming an out of control bullshit class
The rules are already in the MA rulebook so you've got nothing to worry about.
-
how about we call it the butcher class, and the reinvented machine class or maybe the Claytons class, F##k sake, anybody wanting to do this should go and form a new club and call it the has-beans of vmx,
geeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
backseat trev
-
Yep, the can of worms has been opened (no pun intended Trev ;)) Sounds like the addition of a class to suit the bikes some people have built, but don't want to race in pre '90 for whatever reason.
-
no pun taken ;D, but lets face facts, our sport is about SHOWCASEING era's of machines, not about how good you can body shop bikes, apply the Kiss factor, if it wasnt made as a machine ,it shouldnt have a class.F##KING simple.
backseat Trev
-
soundslike they want to drop back a class, so they would ba happy to see the moderns run pre 85,i dont think so.
-
just goes to show some people have NO idea what out sport is about! or let alone the the meaning of the Spirit of VMX.
-
Sounds like a good way to wreck two good bikes to make one bitza >:(. What is the point ??? It does not do VMX any favours
-
I am confused. We already have a EVO class, now do we have an 'Ultimate Evo class' aswell or are we talking the same class ???
-
Saying pre85 cut parts cut off, would that relate to newer model adjustable shocks etc etc.. ??? there is some fancy shocks getting around. Just asking?
-
Basically it sounds like a class designed to allow hybrid big bore twin shock Honda and Kawasakis to race in the Evo class.
-
I will stick my hand up and say that I totally agree with what you are proposing, Big K . It is the way the Evo class rules should have been worded in the first place . Nice & simple . It would clear up a lot of grey areas with scrutineering . I would say that a large number of evo class bikes run drum brake front ends off linkage bikes already . But every time a change to the wording of the rules is suggested, some guys get all hysterical & think that it is something like trying to introduce modern bikes into the Evo class (or even a Dutch twinshock set of rules) . Why is it ok to build any kind of TT500/DR/XL hybrid in any twinshock frame (that would never have existed back in the day), but not ok to put any air-cooled two stroke motor into a twinshock frame ? It would be a tall order to make a better Evo class package than an '81 Maico anyway . It was mentioned in an earlier thread, that it would be Evo class legal to put an '84 Husky 500 motor into a '80 Honda CR250 frame , but not an '82/'83 480 Honda motor . Try explaining the logic in that to someone new to our sport .
I am not suggesting to have the rules changed to suit me or anybody else , because I ride either an '81 Maico or an '84 air-cooled Husky in Evo class ( which are entirely Evo legal) & have no intention of ever building an Evo hybrid . I just think it would add more interest & colour to the class with big bore Hondas & Kawasakis out there . Anyone that thinks that the Evo class rules are perfect as they are now, should read them again . The first sentence that says all machines are to be O.E.M is open to various interpretations & causes confusion .
-
Evo ultimate class whats it all about
gdr please explain you have started a post about a class that does not exsist that i know about and now everyone is on the defencive about it and the only reason this class does not exsist is because there is not enought works bikes around to race them ie 79 RC500 78 SR400 OW yamahas etc what about HL yamahas classic example not factory but everyone thinks they are great and are they hybrid yes so why are they ok they were not oem to yamaha but the 79 RC500 was made by honda while alot of evo bike out there are racing on shocks that were not around at that time with clicker adjusters etc taper handle bars and some outher small items that are not EVO legal why can something that really is not so different to what is going on now in the sport be so shocking to grasp maybe we need to look at this in some outher way and look for a good result not just knock it down before it even has started
-
kawa440 read the post in marque remarks-honda-informed opions cr480 as for the taper bars do you realy think it makes a differance ,because if they do let me know what brand to fit as we run pro taper and they make no differance
-
I wouldn't have thought that there were enough of these types of bikes to run a class.There is one in my shed (Curlys', not mine).
So will there be such a class in the near future?
I take it running them in pre '85 is not what you guys want to do? After all its a hybrid with a pre '85 motor.
-
At the end of the day.. if any class is started, you either have or design a bike to run in the class if the shoe fits. Why the fuggin up roar.If not stick to running what you already run.. I doubt they wil be deleting your class. I dont have one or have the $$$$$$$$$$$$ to build one. But if it creates another spectacle of the sport, good.. Its great to see custom build machines. The Performance car industry has survived on custom stuff(bigger scale) for years.
Thats due to the interest of seeing things done differently. Thats only my opinion.
-
i dont have a problem making another class but dont put them in evo class as they are not
-
If I have a set of YZ465H 43mm forks in my '79 Honda 250, I can run them legally in EVO, however if I have a set of 43mm YZ250J forks I can't run them legally in EVO coz they are from a bike with a linkage. Stupid in my opinion, but them's the rules. Same thing with engines, as EVO550 has stated you could use an '84 500 Husky engine in anything but not an '82 CR480 engine even though they are just a dirty 30+ year old air cooled engine. How dumb is that? Therefore an EVO ultimate class is not just for big bore hybrid bikes, and free's up the STUPID subrules in EVO. This will allow more people more access to parts and see more bikes on the track without any stress from people "anal" about the current EVO rules. This will be a different class to EVO so there shouldn't be a problem. I do however personally think these type of bikes should already be allowed in EVO following the basic guidelines. Just my opinion though. As for the tapered bar/clickered shocks theory, I hate the things on VMX bikes. You couldn't buy them "back in the day" but it's OK to modernise your VMX bike with these because they are not restricted by the rules. I'd rather see an RC500 replica on the track than an RM400 with tapered bars for sure, but only one is legal. By the way even though there is an RC500 replica in my shed and another one being built, I won't be riding them but would love to see similar bikes on the track. For those of you who disagree, stop sooking, no one says you have to ride the class.
Cheers,
K
-
Last weekend at the Japanese VMX meeting I noticed it was refreshingly short of scrutinners and MA officials but it still seemed possible to ride VMX bikes and have great time and the ex factory riders won anyway.
The big class in Japan is pre 80 100cc 4 stroke, which is where all the 20 something guys and girls were riding, maybe it would be better to introduce something appealing to new riders than another shade of EVO grey.
I could see bigK on an XR80.
-
qoute "As for the tapered bar/clickered shocks theory, I hate the things on VMX bikes. You couldn't buy them "back in the day" but it's OK to modernise your VMX bike with these because they are not restricted by .."
Hmmmmmm
copied and pasted from the Nats pre 78 protest:-
Are you reading the rules motomaniac, or just on a high horse?
Externally adjustable shocks, PD valves, fat bars etc are all currently legal.
Fair enough it you don't want them to be legal, but that would be changing the rules, which is a whole 'nother ball game.
I agree with you on the swing arms, FWIW.
One of the reasons these discussion go nowhere, is because far too many people get confused by what the rules are, with what they think the rules should be....
I am reading the GCR's isnt everyone? end
and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what rule book it is that everyone else was reading or where in the GCR's its gives exception to " all components will be of the period (that) the machine was manufacrued" & " modifications using later equipment are not allowed"
-
Brad if the Ultima class was down on numbers the scruts could easy fill it up with all the inelligable EVO bikes.
-
2009 Manual of " MOTORCYCLE SPORT " by Motorcycling Australia (just about covers it )
-
This evo arguement will go round and round in circles again..
If you guys in Vic want to run an evo ultimate class i think you should just go ahead and do it and see how it goes. If it works out it's all good and other states may even give it a shot some day.
-
2009 Manual of " MOTORCYCLE SPORT " by Motorcycling Australia (just about covers it )
Thanks , that what I thought.
now if someone could tell me where its states the following :- Are you reading the rules motomaniac, or just on a high horse?
Externally adjustable shocks, PD valves, fat bars etc are all currently legal.
Fair enough it you don't want them to be legal, but that would be changing the rules, which is a whole 'nother ball game.
-
A class called "Viper unlimited" may be better. Drop the "EVO" from the class name.
Then these woman will have nothing to go on about. Its a stand alone class with its own clear guidelines and no link to the existing evo class. Then the Maico 490 is a unlimited pre85 evo bike.. ;D yee haa lets go, get the claws out :-*
-
VIPER Unlimited sounds good.
Cheers,
K
-
A class called "Viper unlimited" may be better. Drop the "EVO" from the class name.
Then these woman will have nothing to go on about. Its a stand alone class with its own clear guidelines and no link to the existing evo class. Then the Maico 490 is a unlimited pre85 evo bike.. ;D yee haa lets go, get the claws out :-*
HA HA ,Maniac - stir it up!
Im proposing a holeshot only class . You just race to the first corner and thats it.I got a 760cc Maico 2 stroke motor from a GP sidecar that Im putting into a Rm 125 .I rechon its about my only shot at a trophy next year.
-
A class called "Viper unlimited" may be better. Drop the "EVO" from the class name.
Then these woman will have nothing to go on about. Its a stand alone class with its own clear guidelines and no link to the existing evo class. Then the Maico 490 is a unlimited pre85 evo bike.. ;D yee haa lets go, get the claws out :-*
did I hear a eve class or evo class --go girls ;) ;) :D ;D
cheers
-
.................
Im proposing a holeshot only class . You just race to the first corner and thats it.I....................................
[/quote]
I'm in for that class. ;)
-
.................
Im proposing a holeshot only class . You just race to the first corner and thats it.I....................................
I'm in for that class. ;)
[/quote]
YHOOO , looks like I might have brought Hoony out of retirement - round of applause plz! or how about a trophy for that!
-
Its funny how people say "the rules are the rules"; yet we make them and when it isnt quite working we just live with it. I find that strange. An ultimate evo class with 'Werks Replica' bikes is, and could be one of the great specticles of vmx racing. A show case of knowledge, workmanship, skills and different ideas.
Concept Bikes, our own personnal take on making our own 'Werks Bikes' and mostly with spare parts from the left overs from biulding up original looking models. Most of the parts would be found in our own sheds.
http://ozvmx.com/community/index.php?topic=3802.0
-
Thanks DJ refreshing views in the link.
those with a vested interest due to having built bikes need to pursue this. :)
cheers
-
Its funny how the phrase IN THE SPIRIT comes up in vmx and when something like this is brought to the table all the reasons in the world come out why it is bad for the sport straight away the good side is never pursued that much as for taper handle bars small example but are they within the spirit its not about performance or is it correct me if i am wrong as for the rider will be the out come more than the bike in most cases i ride and race a hybrid if that is what you want to call it and it is evo legal. This idea has already been talked about and the name of the class was to be twinshock unlimated not evo and totally seperate from evo run classes so what is the main problem gdr your info has came from someone to start this post with some kind of concern for the evo class gdr you still have not explained your reason for starting this post as for i cannot see the reason that is why i am asking kaw440
-
I dont think we cant just simply say no 'external adjustable' twinshocks as there were some back in the day. im not sure exact year but i was told by someone that he had a set of Hulcos either in late 70's or early 80's that had external damping adjustments. Im not exactly sure when White Power twins came out with external adjustments, there may have been some around 82-83. Im not sure how you would go about changing the shock ruling. Do you ban any modern shocks? There is not much difference between a 2009 set of non adjustable ohlins and a 82 set of non adjustable ohlins other than cosmetics and some minor refinement, so in that case if would be unfair to ban those. Maybe you could limit it to brands that were available back then, or no modern twin shocks with external adjustments as this would be a compromise and allow some of todays brands that were not around back then as long as they dont have external adjustments but still allow for the very few shocks that were around then with external adjustments so this doesnt stop anyone with period Hulcos, or what ever that do have adjustments.
One thing that is clear to me is that many people are now agreeing that the shock rules or lack of has got out of hand as you can have the absolute latest and best multi adjustable twins on a late model twinshocker that can be as good as pre 85 single shock if not better.
Im not too fussed about people using modern cosmetics or tapered bars as they wouldnt win you a race, i just wouldnt use them though as i think they look silliy on a old bike, but i think something could be done about components such as modern multi adjustable shocks that are a significant performance gain.
-
I dont think we cant just simply say no 'external adjustable' twinshocks as there were some back in the day. im not sure exact year but i was told by someone that he had a set of Hulcos either in late 70's or early 80's that had external damping adjustments. Im not exactly sure when White Power twins came out with external adjustments, there may have been some around 82-83. Im not sure how you would go about changing the shock rulling. Do you ban any modern shocks? There is not much difference between a 2009 set of non adjustable ohlins and a 82 set of non adjustable ohlins other than cosmetics and some minor refinement, so in that case if would be unfair to band those. Maybe you could limit it to brands that were available back then, or no modern twin shocks with external adjustments as this would be a compromise and allow some of todays brands that were not around back then as long as they dont have external adjustments but still allow for the very few shocks that were around then with external adjustments so this doesnt stop anyone with period Hulcos, Konis or what ever that do have adjustments.
One thing that is clear to me is that many people are now agreeing that the shock rules or lack of has got out of hand as you can have the absolute latest and best multi adjustable twins on a late model twinshocker that can be as good as pre 85 single shock if not better.
Someone has seen them???? In his dreams!! Hulco is White Power, or Hulco became WhitePower, which ever way you want to put it. Neither had external adjusters in pre 85 period.
You could prove me wrong by forwarding some pictures.
-
Its funny how the phrase IN THE SPIRIT comes up in vmx and when something like this is brought to the table all the reasons in the world come out why it is bad for the sport straight away the good side is never pursued that much as for taper handle bars small example but are they within the spirit its not about performance or is it correct me if i am wrong as for the rider will be the out come more than the bike in most cases i ride and race a hybrid if that is what you want to call it and it is evo legal. This idea has already been talked about and the name of the class was to be twinshock unlimated not evo and totally seperate from evo run classes so what is the main problem gdr your info has came from someone to start this post with some kind of concern for the evo class gdr you still have not explained your reason for starting this post as for i cannot see the reason that is why i am asking kaw440
Simon I think that this post started following the which cr480 motor is better post by BIGK .
-
LCW it's not really about modern shocks persay, but about the ambiguous rules which allow such items, but not a set of 30 year old forks or engine because they came from a single shock bike. Some common sense should prevail, but it seems it doesn't. Anyway I predict us "Mexicans" will see some trick looking "works" type bikes and some other bikes with CR480 & YZ490 forks in them on the track in 2010. And while the pundits and naysayers are crying in their cornflakes, debating the finer points regarding the blasphemy of it all, we down here will all be having heaps of "not quite legit for EVO, even though it should be", FUN!
Cheers,
K
-
This is a comment from another forum
have you just awoken from a long sleep or youve never been to a twinshock meet everybody has these, i have a set of hulco shocks from 79-80 with comp and rebound damping so they were on the market then
I will find some pictures. I know there was at least external adjustable WP's in 85 though, but havent been able to confirm if they were around earlier.
Im not saying anyone is right or wrong here but these areas need clearing up if theres going to be any rule changes.
Here is some on a pre 85 EML. I dont know if they are the same as what that guy said he had in 79/80 though
(http://4j2tea.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p4DlhZQpFb7E7YmXotCS4kdxs1Y1n1XqxWj7XDEp54w4E-VPhPZBsnfcu_aUNAnhglDkEhiDV_nQnFiXnBmmAYA/blueemlhol%20-%20Copy.jpg)
I have got several other pictures of these shocks on pre 85 sidecars, but couldnt confim the period of the shocks though.
Now somewhere i read that a top MX rider was using Hulcos in around 78, but it didnt say if they were adjustable though. I will try and find out who it was now..... ok it was Heikki Mikkola.
I never knew Hulco became WP, are you sure of that? At what time did this happen?
-
kawa440 one minute you know nothing about this class and the next your saying it has been talked about.so what is it is the class going ahead or not.I am all for the class but do not run it with the current evo classes.
-
I agree with your last comment big K. Some of the rules just seem silly just like you say. Now that i think of it, i think we have come to far now to ban adjustable modern shocks. it would upset too many people i think.
-
Leith -
Now somewhere i read that a top MX rider was using Hulcos in around 78, but it didnt say if they were adjustable though. I will try and find out who it was now..... ok it was Heikki Mikkola.
that migh thave been 76 Leith , on his Husky , he had aftermarket Ohlins or Hulco .In 77/78/79 he was on Yamaha with works monoshock.
Hulco's dissappeared sometime late 70's .I knew a Guy who ran them on his 360GP - a Dutch Guy who brought them over himself in 76.They weren't adjustable.
-
Leith the shocks on the side car look like Ohlins to me , from the casting to the adjusters -except for the blue reservoir.Also I never knew that Hulco made piggy backs - only remotes.
-
I just don't get it, no ones saying you can't ride a twin shock cr 480 or kx 500 hybrid, as there is already a class for them......pre '85.
Why introduce a class for a couple of bikes that already have a place to play ???
This is the very reason why alot of vmx faces are showing up on modern vet class start lines.......too much b.s. about rules and regs not suiting a minority.
-
motomainiac, i am 99.9% sure they are Hulcos, but from the 80's, they certainly are not Ohlins. Dont be fooled by the look of the top mount. I also have some photos of other outfits with the same shocks and also remote reservoir single rear Hulco shocks. I also read on another forum that back in 81/82 a couple guys said they had tricked up RM 125's with single Hulco shocks. Now that i think of it, it may of even been more around 83/84, so im sure Hulco didnt disapear in the late 70's. Also if Hulco joined up with WP or WP took over Hulco i would have expected to have read it somewhere in WP's company history but i dont see it mentioned anywhere. its not too much of a big deal at the moment as they are rare as and wouldnt be a problem unless we get to the point of comming down harder on legality of rear shocks, so for now its anything goes.
-
gdr as i said i do not know of any where this class is being ran i did not at any time say that i did not know of the talks that have be discused you have still avoided my question on the reason why you were so concerned about this as to start this post ie what misleading info has came your way to think this class of machine would compete in evo under the current rules once again please explain
-
Just found something else in one of my Fox cataloges. in 1982 Fox had remote reservoir fox factory twin shocks with externally adjustable compression damping. From how i read it, it sounds like they are balanced into one reservoir. Here is what it says.
" Fox factory single clicker shox - The worlds only balanced dual shock system with externally adjustable compression damping, offering ultra high performance at piggyback prices" $286.50 pr (with out springs)
There is a picture of them on a Husky but its hard to see and be of much use. I think i can just make out 1 large reservoir. Well there you go, you learn something new everyday. I also did some searching and found a lot more evidence of Hulco single shocks existing right to the late 80's aswell.
-
way you go :o
-
just start from the begining :P ive got the book handy
-
The evolution story from WP , Hulco , High Tech , Pro IX, Techno Flex , and now Promax and YSS .fill us in ;D
-
ok hulco shocks
-
"Also if Hulco joined up with WP or WP took over Hulco i would have expected to have >>>
Leith thats fair enough .I never read it either.I was looking for Hulco's myself after being umm arrrg bummed to say the least with my Ohlins purchase from the then importer (legend of a guy but I didnt get what I wanted) and was told the story by a Dutch motorcycle proprieter.
I got all the MXA's etc form the 70's through to 90 something so I'll check it out but don't remember any aftermarket shock having the ext adjusters.
BTW I went with remote FOX shox after the Ohlins blew 1 race after a rebuild and they didnt have adjusters .That was 81.
-
I just don't get it, no ones saying you can't ride a twin shock cr 480 or kx 500 hybrid, as there is already a class for them......pre '85.
Why introduce a class for a couple of bikes that already have a place to play ???
Thats all I was asking. Why wouldn't you just call it a pre '85 bike and run it there? No extra class required.
-
how's the track Brad ;D
-
how's the track Brad ;D
Dry! Hopefully not too many complaints( too rough, too fast, too dry, too many / not enough jumps, doesn't flow, too smooth etc etc). ::)
-
I must have missed something if it doesnt fit in Evo production bikes its pre 85 . faark i wish we still had a pre 80 class ,i was so much faster in that .
-
I must have missed something if it doesnt fit in Evo production bikes its pre 85 . faark i wish we still had a pre 80 class ,i was so much faster in that .
Your a family of pro dirt/flat trackers anyway--bugger which bike your on ;) ;D 8)
cheers
-
Corte & Cosso with rebound adjusters. Available Pre 85?
(http://pureenduro.free.fr/Div/cortecosso/6.jpg)
-
Ok lets get one thing clear there seems to be a few people who think that if they have discussed an idea with a Viper Committee
member its going to happen and that they can come on this forum and make assumptions about it going ahead well I have news for these people who have no authority to inform people of what they think is going to happen in Viper keep your nose out of it.
The idea for this class has been mentioned but has not been disscussed at Viper Committe level.And if and when it is it will be announced
by the Viper Committee and no body else!
Myself and another committe member are a bit pissed about this and hope it wont happen again.
-
I apologise in advance for the long, dry post.
Externally adjustable shocks, PD valves, fat bars etc are all currently legal.
Fair enough it you don't want them to be legal, but that would be changing the rules, which is a whole 'nother ball game.
I am reading the GCR's isnt everyone? end
and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what rule book it is that everyone else was reading or where in the GCR's its gives exception to " all components will be of the period (that) the machine was manufacrued" & " modifications using later equipment are not allowed"
http://www.ma.org.au/AM/Template.cfm?Section=General_competition_rules&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentFileID=41129
I've been quite vocal in my criticism of the wording and the formatting of the rules in the past - and plenty of people have taken personal offense to my criticism... Plenty of other people fail to recognise the difference between criticism of the words/formatting and a desire to actually change the rules.
One of the main failings of the current wording of the rules, is that they do not include either of these statements:
"No modifications are allowed, except for the following freedoms..." or; "All modifications are allowed, but with the following restrictions...".
Instead, what we have is a set of rules that specifically allow some things, and specifically prohibit some other things - this means that you have no 'fall-back' position on any issues/components that are not specifically discussed in the rules.
The part you've quoted appears to be an attempt to do this, but if you interpret it 100% literally, then everyone's bikes are illegal, unless they're running tyres, chains, grips etc that were manufacturered in the era.
That being the case, everything that's not specifically addressed by the rules is open to interpretation. Of course, "interpretation" will only really matter when you're involved in a protest (either as a protester or a protestee) and have to argue your case to the Stewards...
Personally, for every modification I make to any of my bikes, I imagine myself in a situation where I'm being protested, and I have to prove to a cynical steward that I'm not a cheat - this is a part of the reason why my bikes are more standard than most. I'm not saying that anyone with a more modified bike is cheating, just that there are plenty of things that I might get away with, but wouldn't bet the house on it.
Agh... I'm rambling... What it comes down to, is that the vague bits of rules can be interpreted a lot of different ways. Much like in civil courts, the difference between sinking and swimming will come down to a mix of the following factors:
a) The reasonableness of your interpretation of the rules.
b) Precedent.
c) Whether it makes a difference.
d) This is Chewbacca*.
So, getting to the point:
1. Rear shocks.
a) Reasonable Interpretation: Rear shocks are only discussed in GCR 18.5.0.8. The implication of 18.5.0.8 is clearly the replacement shock absorbers are allowed (if the rule had intended to limit people to original fitment shocks, then this entire rule would never have existed. Instead it would simply say "Rear shock absorbers must remain as originally fitted to the machine in question".
The fact that the rules specify some restrictions on replacement shock absorbers, means that any replacement shock absorber meeting those restrictions must be legal.
b) Precedent: Many, many bikes have passed scrutiny and raced without protest at VMX meetings, including National title meetings. Adjuster knobs on twin shock bikes are clearly visible, so there's no question that it was simply 'missed' by every scrutineer and every other rider...
c) Whether it makes a difference: Ultimately, the external dampening adjustment is a tool to simplify tuning and offers no direct performance benefit compared to a properly tuned non-adjustable shock.
2. Fat bars.
a) Reasonable Interpretation: Handlebars are a 'consumable' item on a MX bike - they are not a "major component" as (un)defined in 18.6.0.2. They are not mentioned at all in the Classic MX rules, so are clearly not prohibited in CMX. Bars without cross-braces and bars with an OD of greater than 7/8" were both available before 1975.
b) Precedent: Many, many bikes have passed scrutiny and raced without protest at VMX meetings, including the National titles. Handlebars are clearly visible, so there's no question that it was simply 'missed' by every scrutineer and every other rider...
c) Whether it makes a difference/other stuff: These handlebars clearly provide a small improvement in performance and rider comfort, above and beyond true "era correct" parts, but CMX allows performance modifications.
3. PD / Emulator valves.
a) Reasonable Interpretation: Forks are only discussed in GCR 18.5.0.8, although they probably fall into the category of being a "major component" in 18.6.0.2. Neither of these rules prohibit internal modifications to forks. PD Valves/Emulators do not over-step any of the restrictions in 18.5.0.8.
b) Precedent: Many bike have been raced with these components fitted, without consequence. While they are virtually impossible for a scrutineer to identify at a race meeting, there is published information that states that particular bikes have raced at National Championship level with them fitted, again without consequence.
c) Whether it makes a difference/other stuff: These components clearly offer a performance advantage, however CMX allows performance modifications.
It is also extremely difficult to identify these components without time consuming disassembly at events, making "illegal PD Valves" impossible to enforce at scrutiny.
Shim-stack style suspension valves have been around since pre-75 (at least) so they could have been made in the pre-75 era (ie: The technology existed then, even if nbody was using it).
[/bush lawyer]
I can see the counter-arguments for all of the points (particularly the PD Valve stuff), but are they strong enough to sustain a protest successfully?
Personally, I hate the look of fat bars on old bikes (IMHO, they're tolerable on Evo and newer bikes, but are a crime against good taste on the older stuff), and if iy was up to me, they'd be illegal in VMX - but that's different to saying that they are currently illegal.
*This is a SouthPark reference. Short version is that sometimes you can pull out apparently irrelevant info and use it to support your case (or damage someone else's argument). I'm sure it can be found on You Tube or similar if you care.
-
Oh, and 18.5.0.8g prohibits the Dutch-type bikes that convert air-cooled, drum braked, linkaged bikes into twin shock bikes.
It says:
g) Rear shock absorbers shall be in the
original position, using the original
mounting points,
I know that this doesn't cover the "CR480 motor in a CR250RZ" scenario, though.
-
Everyone knows you can currently use any rear shocks, but there are some people who actually want to have their bikes with period correct components and be within the sprirt of the era and not recreate history and just want to know what types of shocks were available when. Anyone who thinks the latest 2009 shocks on any pre 85 and older bike is within the sprirt of the era is kidding them selves, but to some the spirit of the era does not matter, which is OK for them, they might not care if their bike is within the sprirt of the era and all they have to do is follow the rules and running modern shocks is not breaking the rules so that is alright.
-
"everything that's not specifically addressed by the rules is open to interpretation"
so if thats the case WHAT DOES18.7.14.4
"modifications using later equipment are not allowed"
and 18.7.14.5
"All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured "
LEAVE OUT
-
What do adjusters have to do with the Evo issues. Do adjusters make a bike go faster ? All they do is giving you a bigger window . And more often than not , they are not even adjusted correct . So are they realy better? I have deleted lots of my recent posts ,cause its more entertaining to observe the new creation of history and professors running around in circles. :D Should MA realy be in need for exact history data to create cut off points , I am happy to invest the time then. This here is just cyber lobby racing , creating assumtions.
BACK PEDAL????
Shocks have gone from no adjustments to compression , compression +rebound , high and low speed compression etc because its easier to adjust those circuits externally than have to pull down a shock .External adjusters are a convenient feature to enable you to tune your suspension at the track to suit the track - for better lap times of course .ie to be more competitive .of course.Otherwise try selling non adjustable shocks to a Modern racer or team.
I didnt notice any post from the MA yet.The interest in the history was coming from and was an exchange between interested forum members.If you know or remember better then as Paul said away you go ,inform us.Otherwise I suppose you could just stand back and lable people without adding any substance to the thread.
-
"everything that's not specifically addressed by the rules is open to interpretation"
so if thats the case WHAT DOES18.7.14.4
"modifications using later equipment are not allowed"
and 18.7.14.5
"All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured "
LEAVE OUT
Arguably, neither of them mean anything, if you really wanted to push the point - as I keep saying, the wording and the formatting of the rules is so poor that even the high court couldn't solve the dramas around Vern Grayson's Cheney Triumph.... ::)
Let's take the "All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured" line, and try to apply it literally.
This would mean that ALL parts of the bike would have to be genuine originals - including ALL of the consumables (think tyres, grips, chains, sprockets, seat covers, pistons, bearings, fuel hose, brake shoes, cables, fork seals, plastics, etc).
I'm sure you (and everyone else) will agree that this is not what the regs intend - and if we tried to enforce them strictly as written, the whole VMX thing would go to hell instantly - the only people racing would be those who have ultra-low hour original bikes, and only while they remained ultra-low hour original bikes...
So straight away, we are accepting a large degree of interpretation in how we actually apply the regs.
Taking a much more sensible approach (as happens in reality), parts basically fall into of two categories:
1. Major components - frames, engine cases, hubs, etc. These are generally the parts that define a bike's inherent performance (as opposed to set-up based performance) and identity.
2. Other components. This includes both the consumable parts (tyres, chains, grips, etc) and the non-performance related stuff like nuts and bolts, plastics etc.
For better or worse, the real world approach gives freedom to everything except the major components.
From here, there are three points of discussion (maybe more, but these are the points that scream out to me).
The first discussion point is "What exactly is a major component?". Apparently there used to be a list in The Book, but its not there now, so the topic is worth discussing.
The second is whether there should be additional/different restrictions on minor components (and why they should be there - will the changes improve the sport?).
The final one relates to replica and remanufactured parts - what makes a replica accurate enough to be accetable? How do you prove what the original looks like?
I want the rules to be black-and-white too! I'm just pointing out that the rules as they are currently written are NOT black and white, no matter how hard you wish to interpret them as such. As it stands, everyone has their opinion on what the grey areas of rules should be, but won't even consider accepting that another person might have a valid, differeing opinion. If a particular issue really matters, then an official answer is just a formal protest away...
-
Nathan S ,
Have you ever considered going on a state controlling body committee or running for a MA/MANSW position. ?
cheers
-
Not really.
I've wasted heaps of my life in such positions in the rally world, but you never get anywhere... And that was back when I had spare time.
-
I have managed to refrain so far, but this has been eating at me for a day or so now, and is in direct reply to Marshallmech's last post. I will respond in a similar aggressive manner of said post.
Firstly Andy, it seems it was me bigK, Michael Hughes, Bendigo Dirtbikes, VMX Re-Creations, who albeit innocently let it slip of the possible new class in another thread. I make no apologies as not once was the VIPER name or comitte mentioned or implied in my original post. I for one am "pissed" and offended by the inferred arrogance of your post. Since when have you or the VIPER comittee been our mothers, fathers, priests, or whoever, in thinking that you can tell us what or what not we can say or do? Since when have you or the VIPER comittee, held the sole rights to freedom of speech, lateral thinking or new ideas? These bikes have existed, been talked about, shown & documented long before you or the VIPER comittee ever existed. It seems the current VIPER comittee has inherited some of the old VIPER comittee's traits. How do you know somone else isn't going to introduce a class or series, without the narrow mindedness or Draconian rules which VMX seems to have? I hope VIPER does indeed introduce such a class but by no means does the VIPER comittee own it!
K
-
why do we need a seperate class for these bikes? is it all about trophies or are they to be primadonas, so what if they arnt competitive in pre 85, is it all so important to win the tin cup. Maybe the southern states need a rethink and bring some fun back to the sport or do you just carry on doing what the last group did, you might wind up killing the sport or just making it for elitists.
whatever the GCR's we will allways want them changed, so instead of making things clearer we will wind up with a 300 pages that will be disputed even more.
you should all cool down and ride to the current GCR's, and better still, drop point scoreing and ride for fun and then it dosnt matter so much does it!
cheers Trev
-
I have managed to refrain so far, but this has been eating at me for a day or so now, and is in direct reply to Marshallmech's last post. I will respond in a similar aggressive manner of said post.
Was wondering myself about Andy's post.Whats the drama? I took Micheals original "slip" as maybe tongue in cheek maybe hear say.Either way it was all in good fun , amazing how things said can cause such an upset.
Discussions on topics such as Viper Teams, Two seperate Vintage Nats, a Tri State series and Pre 90 class in states that don't already have one are and have been openly tossed around on this forum without committee level discussions first taking place.No drama.
Fact is these bikes are built by guys who have the enthusiasm to do it,here and overseas.I remember seeing that twin shock CR480 that Geoff Holmes built about 10 years ago.I thought it was awesome.
He didnt race the bike that day but if the consenus was to start a class of that nature and we got maybe 10 more bikes at our meetings then I'd be or it.I'd vote for it over having to include quads to make up the numbers like viper did a few years ago and I'd vote for it over including moderns and having to race on a track to suit them.Every Time.
BigK is gunna build a bike (hes Brad Lacket bike is awesome)GDR asked a simple question about it.Why the agro guys ???I guess it will all come out in the wash one day.
-
Why the agro exactly that what i see is that sometimes people get upset or excited confused even angry from the idea of something new different or a change because they dont find out what exactly is going on then like this post someone asks the question then the snow ball starts rolling and it starts to go down hill from there if we all took the time to ask find out how things would be done run changed etc then this type of thing would not be blown out like this all that has been asked or sugessted is a class for hybrid bikes works replica that show the very end of evolution at the factory level of twin shock bikes not to be confused with evo class in the GCR'S we currently race at why when something new is looked at straight away its wrong its not about trophys pre85 or anything outher than guys wanting to ride and or race the bike they see as awsome just like the pre70/75/78/evo and pre85 guys get from their bikes choise to have what makes you happy this is not national level stuff club racing is what its about. As has been said in some posts like the tri state you wont get the numbers this is about trying to give more options at state racing not change the rule or the evo class just one more race like pre90 that is not even in the GCR'S and it works just fine if nothing changes then i think the sport will die a slow death noe that is just hoew i see it nothing else
-
Given that Honda doesn't have a proper 2 stroke twin shock open class bike I can understand the Honda owners desire to cheat a bit..... though I believe that the XL500s is eligible, all you have to do is whack it in a 250RZ frame.
-
VIPER Unlimited sounds good.
Cheers,
K
Just to clear things up
-
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-4/1252864/CR480RA.jpg)
This is the infamous bike that Geoff Holmes built & it looks more like an Evo class bike than a pre '85 class bike to me . It is an '82 CR480 motor in an '80 CR250RA frame. As I wrote somewhere in another thread , it is apparently a bike so evil that it threatens VMX as we know it . It had to be banished to the wilderness of North Queensland & it now lives in Cairns . The bike is occasionally raced in Evolution class in NQ motocross meetings & nobody has a problem with it . The current owner also owns an '81 Maico MC490, which he probably rides more often because he is a few seconds a lap quicker on it.
The Honda always seems to attract a bit of attention & I have seen a few people ask the owner if it is a works bike , which I think is a big compliment to the guy who originally built it . I think that it is a cool bike & is something different in a field usually full of YZs, Maicos, Huskys & the occasion RM .
-
Nice pre 85 bike.
-
I would just like to reply to Micks post about me being very argro about the subject (that by the way I am all for.)
We get many suggestions proposals at Viper and we are trying to get peole on the track racing as best we can,
All I am saying is wouldnt it be better to announce a class with all the details worked out so as people can then discuss it
knowing the full details on how it is to be run? I,m sorry Mick if I came across a bit rough but this has happend before where a good idea is killed off before it is even decided on.
-
Curlys'
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-5/1259377/curlys%20hybrid%20004.JPG)
-
hmmmm ME390 i'm thinking !
-
If you are referring to Curlys' bike Hoony, its a 250ra with an '82 480 motor in it with a Mugen hat on it.
-
There seems to be a misconception in the "for" camp, that those in the "against" camp never want these bikes to see the light of day, but I think this couldn't be further from the truth, I for one love the look of these hybrids (when done right) and encourage them to be brought out.
What we don't understand is why does a new class has to be introduced, or current evo rules changed for this to happen. A simple question needs to be answered,
Why don't the owners want to ride them in pre '85?
If I wanted to build a Honda pre '75 works replica and decided a '77 motor suited the look better, should I still be allowed to take it out in the pre '75 class, we all now the answer to that, so the same principle should apply to the evo class.
-
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-4/1252864/CR480RA.jpg)
It had to be banished to the wilderness of North Queensland & it now lives in Cairns . The bike is occasionally raced in Evolution class in NQ motocross meetings & nobody has a problem with it .
Another aspect that you missed Mark is maybe nobody in FNQ gives a rats arse about the $3 trophy at the end ;). I thought I recognised that bike and the number. It's a sweet bike. I had to ask model it was when I first saw it (knowing SFA about Hondas as I do). To his credit the owner didn't bullshit me. That's one of the things I will miss about FNQ - the people. I am pretty new to the scene up here, but the blokes treat me like a real person even though I don't ride like one ;D ;D Possibly a trained monkey could do a better job :-[.
For mine that can race in EVO any day of the week :o :o No disc brake, no linkage, no water cooling ;).
-
Over it all now. I think I'll stick to trail riding from now on. There's no opinions or BS in the bush, just me & the elements.
K
-
i think people are missing the point with the argument
its not about modifying linkage bikes to twin shock
its about putting a air cooled motor in a earlier frame
eg kx250a5 cr250ra
i think thats what K is trying to say ;)
-
That's the way I read it too, Rusty.
I just wonder why its OK to fit a later engine, but not to convert a linkage bike or a disc-braked bike?
At the end of the day, you'll still be able to say "Yep, she's got air cooling, no linkage and drum brakes, so she's an Evo bike alright!".
I agree totally with Evo550's most recent post, FWIW.
If the argument is "We're not in it for trophies, we just want to go for a ride on a cool bike", then you've got no reason to want to ride the bike in pre-85 where it is clearly eligible and doesn't upset anyone.
-
VIPER Unlimited sounds good.
Cheers,
K
Just to clear things up
Thats my fault andy.. i was only speaking about our series if it happened down here..as i dont like to comment on other states series as i know nothing about them. Other than ours kicks arse ;)
-
A simple question needs to be answered,
Why don't the owners want to ride them in pre '85?
If they did, would that be classed as riding up a class?
-
Over it all now. I think I'll stick to trail riding from now on. There's no opinions or BS in the bush, just me & the elements.
K
Theres plenty of BS and opinions in the bush BigK.. after a few cans round the fire.. never let the truth get in the way of a good story :-[
-
If you don't want the disappointments ,arguments,disagreements,lost mate ship and negative input maybe refrain from putting your club up for discussion,as the whole world can comment on the subject.Perhaps leave it for the club meeting and four walls. 8)
just my observation
cheers
-
A simple question needs to be answered,
Why don't the owners want to ride them in pre '85?
If they did, would that be classed as riding up a class?
:D
1. As was shown at the Nats, you can enter an older bike in a newer class without drama. The "riding up a class" thing only becomes an issue when you use it to ride multiple classes on the one bike.
2. As these "Evo Ultimate" bikes have pre-85 engines, then they must be legal as pre-85 bikes.
-
[quote
A simple question needs to be answered,
Why don't the owners want to ride them in pre '85?
quote]
A simple answer to that question is : Why would you bother ? It would be uncompetitive & I know from my perspective that I am slow enough already . Why would I want to handicap myself further ? Also , it would just look out of place . There was a twin shock RM running around in the pre '85 125 class (I think ?) at the Conondale Nats & to me it stood out as being wrong. If I was going to ride in pre '85 open class , I would want to ride an '83 CR480RD or an RM500.
-
hi Nathan
sure did happen at the Nats, just another loop hole that was changed in the 2007 GCR's that allowed that to happen, i wonder if this rule will be allowed when MA runs the Nats next year, as we tried to avoid this in our sup regs, but oh no said --, the intention is for bikes to ride the actual class but NOT worded that way, so we were forced to allow this to happen, i for i will be entering one bike in multipule class's for 2010.
Cheers Worms
-
Why would you bother ? It would be uncompetitive
Yeah? I see plenty of Evo bikes being ridden in Pre 85 and they're just as competitive if not more so.
This whole "we don't want you riding your bike in multiple classes" is the biggest load of wank. Absolute bullshit!! >:(. Why the fugg should people have to drag multiple bikes to meetings? Oh that's right. The purists amongst you don't think it "showcases" the actual era. What a lot of forkin' dribble. Grow up.
And I'm buggered if I know why anyone would be worried that these Evo Ultimate class bikes would be a problem in Evo anyway? The quick guys are still going to be quick no matter what they're riding. I doubt whether slotting a Big bore engine into a 250 frame is going to be the ants-pants when it comes to handling and reliability anyway......
I think Evo bikes with multi-clicker shocks (my own included) do more to discredit the whole thing more-so than something that the average joe couldn't pick anyway....
-
414 it's so obivious that you have had nothing to do with running events by your statement, if that is the case your events,would just be all in class for vmx. but hey who cares as the GCR's currently allow it and we should all enter multipule entries of the one bike at the Nationals for 2010, i for one will entering my pre78 bike in evo and pre85 and pre 78, plus my pre75 bike in pre 75, pre 78, evo, pre85 as well.
where will it stop?
cheers worms ;D
-
Fair play to you I say.... ;)
-
414 it's so obivious that you have had nothing to do with running events by your statement, if that is the case your events,would just be all in class for vmx. but hey who cares as the GCR's currently allow it and we should all enter multipule entries of the one bike at the Nationals for 2010, i for one will entering my pre78 bike in evo and pre85 and pre 78, plus my pre75 bike in pre 75, pre 78, evo, pre85 as well.
where will it stop?
cheers worms ;D
Its $150 entry fees per class isn't it? Not per bike. that will be $1050 for you.just send the cheque with your entry . Thank you very much.
-
Try $150 plus $10 each extra class. It cost me $190 to enter 5 classes at Conondale.
-
yeah yeah,
$150 entry, and $10 extra bike not class, so that would be $170 , i can manage that!
cheers trev ;D
-
Externally adjustable shocks, PD valves, fat bars etc are all currently legal.
Fair enough it you don't want them to be legal, but that would be changing the rules, which is a whole 'nother ball game.[/quote]chaaanging what rule is that again? I didn't see it in the GCR's
I am reading the GCR's isnt everyone? end it seems that there is some other rule book that I am not aware of
and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what rule book it is that everyone else was reading or where in the GCR's its gives exception to " all components will be of the period (that) the machine was manufacrued" & " modifications using later equipment are not allowed"
[/quote]
One of the main failings of the current wording of the rules, is that they do not include either of these statements:
"No modifications are allowed, except for the following freedoms..." or; "All modifications are allowed, but with the following restrictions...".is that your suggestion for a GCR rule change?
Instead, what we have is a set of rules that specifically allow some things, and specifically prohibit some other things -yes specifically components from the period of manufacture of the machine are allowed, modifications or conponents after that period are not allowed.How black and white do you have to be? this means that you have no 'fall-back' position on any issues/components that are not specifically discussed in the rules.
The part you've quoted appears to be an attempt to do this, but if you interpret it 100% literally, then everyone's bikes are illegal, unless they're running tyres, chains, grips etc that were manufacturered in the era.Do you really think that some vintage or evo racers would interpret the rules to mean the replacing wornout or broken parts is not allowed.I mean if I broke my clutch lever in a fall is some guy going to tell me that i need to find another bike or replace the lever with one from 1980?Sorry I give both the racers and the rule makers more credit than that.Neither are that daft in my book.18.7.14.4 &.4 are about using parts that do not enhance the original specification of the machine with parts that were produced at a later date with better features and technologies
That being the case, everything that's not specifically addressed by the rules is open to interpretation. Of course, "interpretation" will only really matter when you're involved in a protest (either as a protester or a protestee) and have to argue your case to the Stewards...
Personally, for every modification I make to any of my bikes, I imagine myself in a situation where I'm being protested, and I have to prove to a cynical steward that I'm not a cheat - this is a part of the reason why my bikes are more standard than most. I'm not saying that anyone with a more modified bike is cheating, just that there are plenty of things that I might get away with, but wouldn't bet the house on it.
Agh... I'm rambling... What it comes down to, is that the vague bits of rules can be interpreted a lot of different ways. Much like in civil courts, the difference between sinking and swimming will come down to a mix of the following factors:
a) The reasonableness of your interpretation of the rules.
b) Precedent.
c) Whether it makes a difference.
d) This is Chewbacca*.
So, getting to the point:
1. Rear shocks.
a) Reasonable Interpretation: Rear shocks are only discussed in GCR 18.5.0.8. All components???The implication of 18.5.0.8 is clearly the replacement shock absorbers are allowed (if the rule had intended to limit people to original fitment shocks, then this entire rule would never have existed. Instead it would simply say "Rear shock absorbers must remain as originally fitted to the machine in question".
The fact that the rules specify some restrictions on replacement shock absorbers, means that any replacement shock absorber meeting those restrictions must be legal.
b) Precedent: Many, many bikes have passed scrutiny and raced without protest at VMX meetings, including National title meetings. Adjuster knobs on twin shock bikes are clearly visible, so there's no question that it was simply 'missed' by every scrutineer and every other rider...
c) Whether it makes a difference: Ultimately, the external dampening adjustment is a tool to simplify tuning and offers no direct performance benefit compared to a properly tuned non-adjustable shock.
2. Fat bars.
a) Reasonable Interpretation: Handlebars are a 'consumable' item on a MX bike - they are not a "major component" as (un)defined in 18.6.0.2. They are not mentioned at all in the Classic MX rules, so are clearly not prohibited in CMX. Bars without cross-braces and bars with an OD of greater than 7/8" were both available before 1975.Pro tapers are made using patented technology from the early 90's(http://[i][/i])
b) Precedent: Many, many bikes have passed scrutiny and raced without protest at VMX meetings, including the National titles. Handlebars are clearly visible, so there's no question that it was simply 'missed' by every scrutineer and every other rider...
c) Whether it makes a difference/other stuff: These handlebars clearly provide a small improvement in performance and rider comfort, above and beyond true "era correct" parts, but CMX allows performance modifications.
3. PD / Emulator valves.
a) Reasonable Interpretation: Forks are only discussed in GCR 18.5.0.8,all components although they probably fall into the category of being a "major component" in 18.6.0.2. Neither of these rules prohibit internal modifications to forks. PD Valves/Emulators do not over-step any of the restrictions in 18.5.0.8.
b) Precedent: Many bike have been raced with these components fitted, without consequence. While they are virtually impossible for a scrutineer to identify at a race meeting, there is published information that states that particular bikes have raced at National Championship level with them fitted, again without consequence.
c) Whether it makes a difference/other stuff: These components clearly offer a performance advantage, however CMX allows performance modifications.once again ar we discussing the GCR's or a book that I am not aware of?
It is also extremely difficult to identify these components without time consuming disassembly at events, making "illegal PD Valves" impossible to enforce at scrutiny.
Shim-stack style suspension valves have been around since pre-75 (at least) so they could have been made in the pre-75 era (ie: The technology existed then, even if nbody was using it).If nobody was using it its a no brainer.All components to be of the period
[/bush lawyer]
I can see the counter-arguments for all of the points (particularly the PD Valve stuff), but are they strong enough to sustain a protest successfully?
Personally, I hate the look of fat bars on old bikes (IMHO, they're tolerable on Evo and newer bikes, but are a crime against good taste on the older stuff), and if iy was up to me, they'd be illegal in VMX - but that's different to saying that they are currently illegal.All components to be of the period.I am reading the GCR's what book are you reading?
Iits seems to be popular to blame everything on the GCR's.They seem plain enough to me.I might not agree with everything - like excluding pre 78 models for a half inch more travel but over all I have no problem with them.I just need to get a hold of the "other" book to read up all these other rules.
[/quote]
-
yeah yeah,
$150 entry, and $10 extra bike not class, so that would be $170 , i can manage that!
cheers trev ;D
I wasn't sure , I thought that it was $150 per class this year.Whatever, you will be doing well to gte all those rides in or even qualify for all of them.Goodluck anyway's.
-
Try $150 plus $10 each extra class. It cost me $190 to enter 5 classes at Conondale.
Johnny O I dont get it .What was all the BS about riding one bike in two class's then?
-
nothing like missing the point,
the fact remains ?? choose to allow certain competitors, with 2 days notice to the event, after they lodged complaints,( even though it was in the sup regs they couldnt, and 99% entered as per the regs) that they could enter multipule races using the same machine.
so i feel it's fair game then and i only need one bike and ride everything ;)
, so bring on the Nationals
Cheers worms
-
worms what classes where they
-
no more, just making a point!
and now for something completely different!
cheers Worms
-
I am reading the GCR's what book are you reading?
You've read the GCRs and made your own interpretations, same as everyone else has.
The bit that you keep letting yourself down on, is a spectacular lack of ability to recognise that there's "interpretation" in everybody's reading of the rules. Your interpretation is not automatically any more (or automatically any less) valid than any other person's interpretation.
Look at the contradictions in your statements. For example:
"... components from the period of manufacture of the machine are allowed, modifications or conponents after that period are not allowed."
and then
"I mean if I broke my clutch lever in a fall is some guy going to tell me that i need to find another bike or replace the lever with one from 1980?"
The black and white bits says "No later components", end of story. You need to add some interpretation to your reading of the rules to decide that a new clutch lever is acceptable.
I can go on but there's no point in arguing the details, until you understand the concept that I'm trying to explain.
-
Try $150 plus $10 each extra class. It cost me $190 to enter 5 classes at Conondale.
Johnny O I dont get it .What was all the BS about riding one bike in two class's then?
Moto i'm not sure but i entered 5 different bikes in 5 classes.
-
Try $150 plus $10 each extra class. It cost me $190 to enter 5 classes at Conondale.
Johnny O I dont get it .What was all the BS about riding one bike in two class's then?
Moto i'm not sure but i entered 5 different bikes in 5 classes.
okay so its entry per rider . sorry guys.
-
back to back races. :o .riding up a class ... :o who's your fitness coach :P
cheers
-
so technically that means i can ride my rm370
in pre 78 evo and pre85 open classes ::)
to bad for the guy in pre85 he cant ride anywhere else :'(
-
You've read the GCRs and made your own interpretations, same as everyone else has.
The bit that you keep letting yourself down on, is a spectacular lack of ability to recognise that there's "interpretation" in everybody's reading of the rules. Your interpretation is not automatically any more (or automatically any less) valid than any other person's interpretation.
Look at the contradictions in your statements. For example:
"... components from the period of manufacture of the machine are allowed, modifications or conponents after that period are not allowed."
and then
"I mean if I broke my clutch lever in a fall is some guy going to tell me that i need to find another bike or replace the lever with one from 1980?"
The black and white bits says "No later components", end of story. You need to add some interpretation to your reading of the rules to decide that a new clutch lever is acceptable.
Yes indeed you need to somehow interpret it all rather than take it absolutely literally.If the replacing of worn out or broken parts was not allowed that would mean the end of the sport.Maintaining your bike is part of the sport wether its vintage or modern.The rules for period competitions are there to insure that the replacement of parts are correct for the period specified and that some competitors dont gain advantage over others buy modifying or installing more advanced components from a later period.Consumerables that everyone needs are not contendable.
Everybody needs them.
Nobody actually needs tech advanced components that have been appearing on vintage bikes more and more to ride or race and not everyone has the resources or even wants to install tech advanced components from the 90's and later on their vintage or Evo bikes.The Gcr's are there to keep the comp fair and accessable.I can't see how you can argue that allowing ofchanging a broken lever means that you can allow upgraded mechanical components on a machine as well.
As a foot note the hybrid class that has been discussed on this thread would be just that hybrid ,everybody would be aware that machines would have later conponents so no issue.The current Evo class is not a hybrid class and should never be.
cheers , no bad blood
[/quote]
-
so technically that means i can ride my rm370
in pre 78 evo and pre85 open classes ::)
to bad for the guy in pre85 he cant ride anywhere else :'(
Yes he can...in Pre 90 ;D
-
I thought you could only ride up one Class ? at the nats.
-
I thought you could only ride up one Class ? at the nats.
Depends Hilly , GCR's say all bikes before the cut of date , I think the supp regs for the last Nats might have had the one clas up thing but not for all class's.It confusing.
BTW sorry that I didnt get back to you on the parts.Got side tracked .Do you still need anything?I still got a some bits set aside for you.
-
I am reading the GCR's what book are you reading?
I can go on but there's no point in arguing the details, until you understand the concept that I'm trying to explain.
Nathan, I agree the rules are way to open to many interpretations - which may or may not all be correct ???
18.7.14.3 is a doozy!! They way i read it you cannot change anything that is not Pre 85 NOS. definitely no fat bars or for that matter a late model clutch lever or chain or tyre etc.
Until these rules are rewritten these arguments will go on forever more ::)
-
Not really Mick that say 'Modifications using later equipment are not allowed" meaning you cannot modify your existing machine with 'equipment' out of period. That does not mean 'replacement' which is what you do with a chain, handle bars tyres etc etc.If square wheels suddenly become all the rage in 2010 means no matter how good they are you can't retro fit them.
The classic road race rules are easy to follow and well written and they have log books ;)
-
Not really Mick that say 'Modifications using later equipment are not allowed" meaning you cannot modify your existing machine with 'equipment' out of period. That does not mean 'replacement' which is what you do with a chain, handle bars tyres etc etc.If square wheels suddenly become all the rage in 2010 means no matter how good they are you can't retro fit them.
The classic road race rules are easy to follow and well written and they have log books ;)
Pretty simple really.
-
Yes indeed you need to somehow interpret it all rather than take it absolutely literally.If the replacing of worn out or broken parts was not allowed that would mean the end of the sport.Maintaining your bike is part of the sport wether its vintage or modern.The rules for period competitions are there to insure that the replacement of parts are correct for the period specified and that some competitors dont gain advantage over others buy modifying or installing more advanced components from a later period.Consumerables that everyone needs are not contendable.
Everybody needs them.
Nobody actually needs tech advanced components that have been appearing on vintage bikes more and more to ride or race and not everyone has the resources or even wants to install tech advanced components from the 90's and later on their vintage or Evo bikes.The Gcr's are there to keep the comp fair and accessable.I can't see how you can argue that allowing ofchanging a broken lever means that you can allow upgraded mechanical components on a machine as well.
As a foot note the hybrid class that has been discussed on this thread would be just that hybrid ,everybody would be aware that machines would have later conponents so no issue.The current Evo class is not a hybrid class and should never be.
cheers , no bad blood
Ah... now we're getting somewhere.
The next step is to work out "What is a consumable part?"... At the moment, the GCRs don't even try to consider them.
Stuff like tyres and chains are obvious, but what about exhaust pipes, rear shocks, handlebars, etc?
How do you write a rule that bans fat bars, but not old-school cross-brace-less alloy bars, or old-school 1" OD bars?
Similarly, how do you enforce a ban on PD valves without pulling down everyone's forks at every meeting?
In any historic form of motorsport, the equipment will be faster than it was when it was new - its unavoidable, due to the 25+++ years of increased knowledge (and developments to tyres, brake friction material, etc).
The trick it to work out what defines a bike (or car) as a historic, and to recognise that you can't totally stop the clock.
Personally, I don't think that a set of adjuster knobs on the rear shocks, or some bits inside the forks that you can't even see, makes a VMX bike any less vintage.
-
Try $150 plus $10 each extra class. It cost me $190 to enter 5 classes at Conondale.
Are you David Knight... or Trevor Hendy??? :D Far out thats alot of riding, lucky you.
-
Ah... now we're getting somewhere.
The next step is to work out "What is a consumable part?"... At the moment, the GCRs don't even try to consider them.
Stuff like tyres and chains are obvious, but what about exhaust pipes, rear shocks, handlebars, etc?
How do you write a rule that bans fat bars, but not old-school cross-brace-less alloy bars, or old-school 1" OD bars?
Easy .Its already written. "All components to be of the era of the machine"Old schools bars that are of the era are by the rules acceptable, shocks etc should also be.New tech Bars from a later era arenot by the rules accepted.Personally I am not going to protest someone for running tapered bars.I am just stating how I read the rules.I prefer my bikes to look peroid correct as possible and I would not hesitate to snap a pic of a restored CZ for instance with weld on perches on the bars but I wouldn't bother with one that had Gold anodized fat bars.
And if parts are reproduced to original specs thats also OK ,if they are reproduced with later features and technologies then that its questionable.In the end what ever the GCR's say its between the guys in the sport , what they build and what they protest
-
"All components to be of the era of the machine".
So we're back to saying that you've gotta run pre-85 (or pre-75 or whatever) tyres?
Either is a rule that is enforced consistantly, or its a rule that is ignored consistantly - but if you choose you use it sometimes but not others, then we're going to keep having this discussion until the end of time.
The third option is to make the rule apply specifically to some components, and specifically not to others, and explain what "of the era" actually means.
At the moment its like we're trying to build a house, but the plans only have dimensions that say things like "Big", "Not so big", "this bit is really small" and nobody can actually agree on exactly what size anything should be.
-
"All components to be of the era of the machine".
So we're back to saying that you've gotta run pre-85 (or pre-75 or whatever) tyres?
Either is a rule that is enforced consistantly, or its a rule that is ignored consistantly - but if you choose you use it sometimes but not others, then we're going to keep having this discussion until the end of time.
The third option is to make the rule apply specifically to some components, and specifically not to others, and explain what "of the era" actually means.
At the moment its like we're trying to build a house, but the plans only have dimensions that say things like "Big", "Not so big", "this bit is really small" and nobody can actually agree on exactly what size anything should be.
tires are the same for everyone .do you think that fitting another tyre is a modification?If so good luck to you. Tapered bars can only be fitted to a period machine with modifications and are a modification themselves .The tyre on the market are the tyres on the market you have to use them.everyone.If tapered bars were the only bars on the market then no contention because you cant race without tyres or handlebars but they are not original type bars are still on the market , you buy them and bolt them on your bike .just like you always did.
-
Has anyone ever applied to the commision to have the evo rules changed ? If so what was the request and the response?
Seems to be a lot of complaints about how ambiguous the rules are, just wonder if anyone has attempted to rectify it, or are they content to whinge?
NOT INTENDED AT ANYONE IN PARTICULAR, JUST AN OBSERVATION.
-
I have been thinking about putting something in writing for a while, as well as suggesting the pre '78 class travel limits be increased to 10 inches (& adding the VB Montesa to the list of eligible machines) . Somehow, I think it will be an exercise in futility. But it is worth a try, rather than whinging about it as you say . I am a long way from the action , but I suppose that I have to forward my submission through Dave Tanner . I think that the Whitsunday Dirt Riders might have been the club that originally proposed the pre '78 classes , so I might ask some of them how they went about it .
-
I have been thinking about putting something in writing for a while, as well as suggesting the pre '78 class travel limits be increased to 10 inches (& adding the VB Montesa to the list of eligible machines) . Somehow, I think it will be an exercise in futility. But it is worth a try, rather than whinging about it as you say . I am a long way from the action , but I suppose that I have to forward my submission through Dave Tanner . I think that the Whitsunday Dirt Riders might have been the club that originally proposed the pre '78 classes , so I might ask some of them how they went about it .
Yer I'll back you on that one.Seems bloody daft that bikes available in that period are not allowed to race in a vmx class for that period and or must be modified from stock to be eligible
-
How do you write a rule that bans fat bars, but not old-school cross-brace-less alloy bars, or old-school 1" OD bars?
were the bars in the 70's actually tapered from 1 or inch and 1/8 in the middle and then tappered to 7/8? i think thats the question you gotta ask.
i know there was 1 inch bars all the way along and solid alloy 7/8 bars with no cross bars back then but was there actually tapered bars?
I dont think you have to ban all tapered or oversize bars. its really not too hard to pick and work out whats a modern Pro Taper or TAG tapered bar with their bling gold and blue annodizing etc, thats the ones you want to ban not the period oversize stuff.
you might be able to word it
'all modern bars that taper from large diameter at clamps to 7/8 at control ends are not allowed. Vintage period oversize or tapered (if any exist) are allowed' now i would think you would need to be able to prove they are from back in the day aswell otherwise guys will just be painting a modern set flat black or what ever to make them look old and vintage.
I think the word 'tapered' is the key. if no tapered vintage mx bars existed back then that makes wording the rule simple ' no tapered bars'
-
There weren't any tapered bars in the 70's, only Inter-Am solid alloy bars without a cross brace.
Why all the fuss about tapered bars? The rules are in place to stop fitment of later model performance enhancing parts. Since when have handlebars been performance enhancing?
I do agree that fatbars look stupid on a vintage bike.