OzVMX Forum
Clubroom => General Discussion => Topic started by: BAHNZY on December 24, 2007, 10:10:27 pm
-
Under the 2007 GCR’s for Evolution classes (and I’ve been informed that not a great deal will change, if at all in the 2008 GCR’s) there is a reference to OEM. I am interested in how various individuals interpret what OEM is. For those that don’t know the EVOLUTION GCR’s, here they are.
EVOLUTION CLASS - GENERAL
18.7.11.1 Evolution class shall be run as a national championship and can be independent of other classic Motocross classes.
18.7.12 Evolution Class- Eligibility
18.7.12.1 Bikes will be OEM.
18.7.12.2 Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed.
18.7.12.3 All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured.
a) No linkage suspension,
b) No Disc brakes,
c) Air cooled motors.
18.7.13 Evolution Class- Classes
a) Solo 125cc,
b) Solo 250cc,
c) Solo 263cc and over.
18.7.13.1 No age-group classes will be run.
Rather than ask for your specific interpretation of the actual GCR’s in isolation, I’ll give you four (4) different scenarios to ponder. Honestly I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer, but I would like to understand what iterations individuals can come up with.
Scenario 1
A 1980 CR250 is presented to the scrutineer at the upcoming MX Nationals in Tasmania with a set of Fox rear shocks matched to a set of FOX forks. Under the rule 18.7.12.1 “Bikes will be OEM” and given that this bike did not come from the Original Equipment Manufacturer, in this case Honda with these components, would the bike be permitted to participate?
Scenario 2
A hybrid bike has been engineered with the following components.
A stock 1980 RM250T chassis.
An XL350 engine.
The owner of this bike is considering going to Tasmania for the Nationals, is he wasting his time taking the bike?
After all the bike is using parts from the period the machine was manufactured and it is air cooled, has drum brakes and has a non linkage suspension system.
Scenario 3
A beautifully prepared 1980 YZ250 has been racing all day. From the outside the bike is as the factory built it, however beneath the skin it is a whole different ball game. The front forks have a set of emulators fitted and the rear shock is an Ohlins unit. The engine sports a late model Pro-Circuit muffler and the reed block has been swapped out for a V Force unit.
The bike/rider podiums at the Tassie Nationals and the items above are identified at the end of the days racing. What do think should be the outcome?
Scenario 4 (last but certainly not least)
The owner of a 1980 Kawasaki KX250 is patiently waiting in line to be scrutineered. The bike is 95% stock, OEM if you like, except the bike is fitted with a set of top of the line YSS shocks with adjustable everything. Should the owner be concerned about passing scrutineering?
-
Scenario 1... YES FOX parts are peroid mods.
Scenario 2... YES while not OEM all parts are 'of the period'
Scenario 3... NO later model pipe is a dead give away, v-force reeds are obvious but are they going to give THAT MUCH of a boost
as for emulators "If you cant see them, then they aren't there"
Scenario 4... YES for the same reason the Ohlins on the YZ didn't get a mention NO-ONE runs OEM shocks, except for a few garage
queens most VMX bikes I've seen run some kind of aftermarket shock if you can afford the best then run'em.
-
Scenario 5... Join VIPER, sit back, be cool.... 8)
-
The Evolution class was introduced to the Thumper Nats in '97 with the basic rules of Air Cooled, Drum Brakes and Non Linkage Suspension to keep it simple so it wouldn't end up with all the bullshit rules and protests of the Pre 75 and similar classes. Let's hope MA don't fork with it and turn it into a complicated mess. Basically by OEM i think they are trying to say 'no later model components'. Eg.. fitting a CR480 motor into a twinshock frame. Fox forks, Ohlins shocks, etc are all elligible items from the period.
-
Yes I totally agree with you Maico31, a non linkage YZ '80/81 was a 465 not a 490. OEM is what the bike came out with from the manufacturer at the time of making the bike, and after-market parts (fox-ohlins) are all period stuff(for that matter any shock of any period so long as it doesnt have modern adjustments). A hybrid bike using period parts is fine because if you had the money you could have bought all the best parts available at the time to make a bike. The tough question I think that was asked is, what about the late model Pro-ciruit muffler? With the new rules about loudness, isnt fitting a newer muffler going to be what everyone is going to have to do now, or at least try to find something that will do the job of quieting down the bike but still look period? Now can someone please tell me about V-force reeds? Do they give you much more power or do the just clean up the power you have already got?
As for the top of the line YSS shocks I believe that this goes against the bike. Top of the line YSS have high speed and low speed dampening which was never available in the day and the valving is like modern bikes. Lets remember that we are trying to recreate a period in time. One of the most important items in motocross is suspension, and by having modern valving/adjustablity isnt that a major performance inhancing improvment? Whats the difference between an aircooled motor and a watercooled motor, will I believe about the same(if not less than) period shocks to modern shocks. But we arent allowed to run watercooled??
Anyway thats my take on period racing, and YSS have very nice period shocks so there isnt any excuses as to why you have modern adjustable shocks on your bike.
-
Scenario 1 - Yes Bike - OEM Mods - Period
Scenario 2 - No Bike - Under those rules No, as the bike was never manufactured in that form so can not be OEM.
Scenario 3 - No Bike - OEM Mods - Not Period
Scenario 4 - No Bike OEM Mods - Not Period
-
I think with shocks, mufflers and reed blocks we have to be a bit leanient because new OEM parts are no longer easily available so we have to use aftermarket products. A new Pro Circuit muffler would be no real advantage over a new DG muffler and a new pair of hi/low speed externally adjustable shocks would perform no better than a correctly valved set of non adjustable Ohlins which were period shocks. It just means one guy can adjust his shocks in 2 mins and the other takes 2 hours. Basically it still comes down to the rider and one guy is not going to win races over another because he has a pair of trick fully adjustable shocks and a V force reed block. An RM250t with an XL350 motor would be eligible in the Evo class because he has taken a backward step in technology and not fitted later model parts and it could've been done in 1980.
-
If the new rules discrimate against hybrid bikes as in scenario 2 then MA has just shot the vintage movement in the foot bigtime. Hybrids have been around since the dawn if time so I fail to see how they could knock back a bike built entirely from era parts. I somehow feel there has been a misinterpretation as Maico31 says. I can't see why MA would change things that will detract from the numbers..doesn't make sence :-\
-
That's exactly right Doc, let's hope things stay as they have been, it's been successfull so far.
-
On behalf of YSS I would like an official statement.
We only sell shocks that are within the rules.
The rules are made by MA , not us.
Europe has more strict rules and shocks can not be adjustable, even with piggyback.
We do have them shocks and they are considerable cheaper than the adjustable range.
For example pre 70 PRO or Bravos for only $250.00 a pair
pre 75 the E 302 for $450.00 a pair and for the Evo with Piggybacks the C302 are only $600.00 a pair. (YSS Australia does not stock C302 because there is no demand at the moment )
The thing is , as long as there are no rules , customers will opt for the better working Hi end shocks to get the advantage.
But should MA change the rules , what is going to happen to all the adjustable shocks that are already used ?
-
When there is a will there is always a way around the situation ;)......Lets face it most of the bike's we run are at least 27 years old , NOS is fast diminishing and this is why we are relying on after market replacements such as YSS
-
I'v searched high and low and still haven't found NOS knees, back, racing spirit.... ;D ;D ;D
-
All of those bikes should be fine, even at the Nationals.
The one definite exception is if the RM/XL hybrid's engine is from a later XL350 - the Pro-Link rear one (RD to RG?) which is not eligible for Evo itself, and therefore it's bits are not Evo legal.
The V-Force in the YZ is also questionable - but AFAIK, the V-Force thing hasn't really been tested, so there's no hard-and-fast answer.
Remember that the earlier part of the manual says that rear shocks, ignitions and exhausts are (basically) free, and those components are what most of your questions relate to.
Yes, I know the rules are confusing and ambiguious, particularly WRT which pre-75 bits still apply for later bikes and which don't (tell me where it says that pre-78 bikes are exempt from the pre-75 suspension travel limits and I'll buy you a beer), but the reality is that if you've made an honest effort to follow 'the vibe' of the rules, you won't have a drama.
-
Walter please don't think that I am having a dig at your shocks, thats not what I am trying to say at all. It is just the way I read the rules of MA that have been posted. I personally don't care what people have on there bikes. If I cant beat them on what I am riding, then, even if I was on my modern bike I probably wouldn't beat them. I as a rider can only go so fast, and it doesn't really matter what bike I am on, its just my ability as a rider that limits me to a certain speed.
But in the rules 18.7.12.2 and 18.7.12.3 say to me that a part has to be made in or the same as the part of the period.
My interpretation of the rules;
18.7.12.1- Bikes will be OEM.----- The bike should be correct as the manufacturer built it.
18.7.12.2- Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed.------- if the part wasn't available in that period then it isn't allowed now.
18.7.12.3- All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured.---------after market products are OK as long as they were available in the period.
Maybe MA need one more rule for when parts are hard to get or very expensive.
i.e
18.7.12.4-Non OEM bikes/parts shall not exceed the equipment of the period??
Or maybe I have it all wrong, but it does seem funny to me that we all like original nos parts (and pay the earth for them) but when it comes to racing everyone wants the latest and greatest, weather it was available back then or not. To me that is not vintage, my YZ's have yamahop because they are vintage motocross bikes and in all there wisdom Yamaha made them that way so thats how I will ride them.
On the other hand I can see why people like their modern functioning parts and as far as the rules go it would be very hard to find a complete original bike and parts of the period. For example tires, levers, sidecovers and even rims and cables. But if who ever wrote the rules wanted to be literal about them we would all be struggling to race.
-
Hi Nathan,
18.7.7.1 a,2007 GCR's
I'll have a crowny.
Apart from that As Nathan say's
If you read the Evolution rules in conjunction with the guidelines for the earlier classes
I think you should be alright with the YZ250 as well as the others
except the XL350 if it's from a pro link bike as I don't think they ever made a XL350 twin exhaust port RFVC with twin shocks an earlier XL350 74/78 model would be OK.(or just put an early XL/XR500 in) ;D
Noel
-
DJ , I dont get offended by your comments. We only produce what people want at the best price possible.
If the rules would dictate OEM replacement parts thats not a problem , we still make them too , if dont have them already.
If the demand is big enough , we make a shock looking 100% original if need to be. But as it stands now , there is no demand for that. After all things should be fun and not politics. Look forward to a great 2008 with lots of racing and fun, thats what its all about . Hope to catch up with you at CD5.
regards Walter
-
DJ if the virtues of a Vforce haven't reached the Shakey Isles yet well we are not going to tell you. Just stick to those Boyensen jobbies you'll be fine.
All bike should breeze through scrutineering excepy for Scenario 3 where the owner/rider should be shot at dawn as a deterent for this type of thing ever happening again.
I would argue the OEM is put in there to stop things like lightweight special copy frames and me machining some billet cases, rapid prototyping some barrels etc etc.
However for all those weirdly hung up on 'recreating eras' and such should check out the Manx Norton/AJS 7R copies that race today, they provide a greater spectacle(like lapping the IOM at over 100mph) than an unlimited number of 100% correct period racers.
After all that the rules are pretty clear.
-
by MA I assume you mean motorcycling Australia - why on earth do you let them meddle with your sport - VMX should be run by VMX'rs for VMX'rs - keep the suits as far away as possible
as for the rules - the most important rules are
- turn up with an old bike & a good attitude - everything else is incidental
- all bikes to be built in the "spirit of the era" -if everyone did this it would be the only rule you need - it seems to me you Aussies are fixated with rules - I just want to ride my old bike
-
So I take it that as long as noone knows what you have on your bike its ok? Modern high/low speed compression/rebound dampening, v-force reeds, split carb intake, fork emulators or even cartridge? If this is the case why do you have rules?
A reed block is a reed block isnt it? just like a set of shocks are a set of shocks, arent they? ;)
But hey as Geraldo says 'I just want to ride my old bike' and I dont care if I line up against the newest thing out there or the oldest, I will always have fun doing it. ;D
Good luck with the rules and where can I find a copy of the rules (MA)? can someone please post a link to the rule book?
-
I really don't care too much for the rules as all my bikes are pieced together with OEM parts built within the correct era anyway. End of problem! ;D do you really need bling shocks, reed valves, emulators or fatty pipes to be competitive? A properly setup stock bike won't be that much slower than a big dollar high bling machine so simply go with what you have and ride it to the best of your ability..winning rarely enters my mind, staying upright and riding within my ability and remaining within my budget does ;)
-
http://www.ma.org.au/Content/MA/NewsEvents/2007racingcalendar/FormsRules/Generalcompetitionrules/Manual_of_motorcycl.htm
scroll down till you see this
You can also click here to download the entire 2008 Manual of Motorcycle Sport in one file (Adobe Acrobat [.pdf] file 9.6MB - WARNING- Please be patient - file will take some time to download)
good reading for insomniacs DJ. i agree with you about too manys rules, that's fine for nationals and the trophy hunters out there, but keep the club / state level simple for all to enjoy in uncomplicated format.
if a you need rules to ride old bikes with other old blokes and are concerned that so & so has this part on his bike then go ride modern MX with the catwalk Fashion Racers if you are that serious
-
http://www.ma.org.au/AM/Template.cfm?Section=General_competition_rules&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentFileID=31251
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario1: The 1980 CR250 with Fox suspension components is 100% legal as both were available during the 'evo era'. The OEM reference in the rule book refers to 'major components' which if you refer back to the pre 75 rules would mean the frame and engine, wheels and forks. A better,more understandable wording would be "all major components must have been available at the time of manufacture of the engine and/or chassis".
Scenario 2: The XL 350 Honda powered Suzuki RM250T is totally legal. The era of the bike is determined by the latest 'major component', that being the frame which slots it into the Evo class.
Scenario 3: There are at least two ways of looking at scenario 3. There is the rule book legality which from my perspective it's legal, and the moral perspective which to my mind it's illegal. While I have no objection to the modifying of bikes for performance gain, I have a real problem with the use of out of era technology. This is vintage racing folks. Whether you agree with the philosophy or not the class of racing was developed to recreate a particular era in racing history. If the test case 1980 YZ needs to be modified it should be done using the parameters of the technology of the day. V Force reeds, emulators, programable ignitions, and shocks with high and low speed adjustable dampening don't fit into what vintage racing is trying to achieve. If you think that vintage motocross is a hotbed for trying to get 60 hp out of your TM Suzuki or whatever using every modern means you have lost the whole concept of what vintage racing is about. Sure, modify to your hearts content but keep the 'spirit of the era' parameter in place.
Scenario4:The Kawasaki is 100% legal by the rulebook but refer to scenario 3 for my moral perspective.
*Lozza, if you think that todays vintage road racers provide a "greater spectacle" than the "100% correct racers" you either weren't around the classic road race scene during the 1980's golden era or you've conveniently forgotten how many Manx Nortons, G50 Matchys, AJS 7R's and other exotica were racing and are now never seen. Todays vintage racers are indeed faster but it's a sea of cocked up Hondas that were never a part of the scene back in their era, big buck replicas that have little resemblance to the bikes they are supposedly based on internally and in some cases,externally, and speedway Jawa powered Featherbed Nortons that have no historical significance or legality in pre 62 classic racing. Sure they're faster but the racing is piss poor compared to 20 years ago. If you look at how the classic and post classic 250 classes have become a laughable joke because of people taking the technology way past where it was ever meant to go. Now you've got bikes that have no resemblance to anything that raced in the era. I know because I helped build a 1961 Cotton Cobra that was merely a 1982 YZ 250 with Villiers fins and outer cases welded to the yamaha components. It looked like a Villiers from 5 metres away but a close look clearly showed it's Yamaha heritage. The bike was never ever picked up in scrutineering.
If vintage motocross is allowed to continue to continue to allow later mods into the fray it'll before long become the legal rats nest that vintage road racing has become.
-
Firko i dont spose theres any photos of the cotton/yz around ? It must have been a good project to have been on.
-
I agree with Firko..when I first started building my bikes I was a little taken back by how hard the parts were to find..after being involved in VMX discussion groups and meeting many many like minded others over a period of time I now find near any part I wish for is available be it used, NOS or a replica part. (albeit,all at a price) There is no need to for newer tech or newer hi-tech parts to keep these old beasts running as it detracts from the whole concept of being vintage. I loved modified bikes but when you look at some of the current vintage road racing bikes it does nothing for me and it again becomes a situation of who has the most money and the latest technology will usually win..not exactly a level playing field is it! Keep em' stock and ride them hard..look at most of the title winning bikes and you'll see they are not overly exciting to look at but they do the job time and time again. I honestly believe if you throw big $$$ on or at new technology for your vintage vessels then you have missed the whole concept and more than likely you are trying to compensate for poor initial setup or lack of rider skill. Yes you can throw big dollars at vintage stuff (as we all know) but let's keep it all 100% vintage.
-
If we are of the belief (As YSS posted "The rules are made by MA , not us") that a bunch of Management boffins from MA and their local affiliates MA(V), MA(NSW) etc. sit in a room and come up with the new rules then we/us/you are mistaken.
Changes to, and the inclusion of new rules are put forward by MA licence holders via their respective Management Committee's. Yes MA has the final word on them, but they don't initiate them. I think that the reality from MA's point of view is that the least amount of changes would be the best situation as they would take a position of "If it ain't broke, then don’t fix it"
On the scenarios that I outlined;
In relation to using the Pre75 rules & philosophy referencing "major components" this is the case for Pre75, not EVOLUTION. Why, because it does not state that in the section titled EVOLUTION in the GCR's.
Whether a part/component fitted to a bike provides a performance advantage or not (eg: V Force Reeds) the clarification of the rule is simple. The part was not available at the time that the bike was originally manufactured and another competitor is well within their rights (as outlined in the GCR's) to challenge the validity of the bike.
The one point that I thought may have raised some comment is that no age classes will be run.
I find this absolutely ridiculous and it needs to be changed. Maybe not for the National level but certainly for the club/interclub/state level.
As you have probably figured out, the EVOLUTION Rules are minimalist in the extreme, so much so that the interpretation of them is so polarised. So.... If you are unhappy with the GCR's then get a bunch of like minded riders together and write individual letters to your respective Management Committee's (The committee's and the members are in the front of the GCR handbook) and request changes.
If we (the riders) want a set of rules that represent the bikes and classes we ride then we need to fix them. We have 10 months to do so, before the 2009 GCR Manuals published. For 2008 it all wrapped up.
Aside from the EVOLUTION rules, Pre85 rules will be in the 2008 GCR and I am taking a fair guess that as a starting point they will probably be a carbon copy of the EVOLUTION rules.
-
KB..I haven't got any photos of the 'Rotten Cotton' but I'll ask the owner if he has any.
On modifications, you can be extremely creative and still be within the parameters of a given era. I've had some fun locating period aftermarket race parts for all three of my pre 70 class bikes, The Hindall Ducati, Cheney Yamaha 360 and my old Maico. I'm using period Arnaco shocks that will be modified by Walter on the Hindall, stock Konis on the Cheney and the YSS shocks on the Maico are non adjustable. I will admit that I have a fat pipe and PVL ignition on the Maico but all in all I found that you can still go trick without using current technology. I don't understand what's to be proved by using modern components in old bikes? If you need to use out of era components so badly perhaps vintage racing isn't the sport for you.
-
Firstly, MA VMX rules are set by vintage riders, either on the State or National boards. If anyone wants a rule re-interpreted they need to put a submission in to their local vintage board.
As for the Evo rules, I can see both sides. My Evo bike I guess is illegal. It has 1983 CR250 forks on it, a 1981 swingarm, 2006 Mikuni carby, 2007 DG pipe, 1989 reeds, 2006 2 pack paint, 19" rear rim, 2007 tyres, Husky shocks. I only did these modifications to make it a better bike to ride and to me it is in the spirit of the era, but as I've discussed with Firko over our monthly beer and bullshit session, where do you set the limits. I agree with him to an extent. I've seen a 1982 CR480 with 2 shocks welded on the back which I certainly don't agree is in the spirit of the era, the problem is that everyone has a different view on what's right and what's wrong so there needs to be a limit as to how far we can go either way. To keep them totally OEM is rediculous, as is open slather.
If you followed the rules to the letter I could run my 1983 forks on a 1987 Husky but not on my Honda because it is off a later model bike. Where does it stop? I don't have an answer, but I certainly have no interest in riding my bike stock because half the fun of being involved in VMX is playing with the bikes
-
But Magoo matey, you don't have to ride it stock to keep it within the spirit of Evo. You ask the question "Where does it stop"? That's a no brainer, you stop where the term "spirit of the era " stops. I'm not involved in the Evo scene but I don't see too many grey areas in the rules as long as you are fair dinkum about it. Why use disc brake model Honda forks when you know they were dodgy. There are plenty of 40-44mm legal forks that you could have used. Same with the swingarm. There are plenty of legal aftermarket alloy swingarms available. I,m not too sure of the rules regarding carbies but if it says round slide only as I suspect it does, why use a new tech carby? The 2007 DG pipe is fine if it's made for a '79 Honda. The paint and tyre comments are silly. Making the bike a better bike to ride is not an excuse to cheat. These are old bikes that are naturally going to be harder to ride. That's one of the things that defines vintage bikes.
If guys like Mike Downey or Elvis can build extremely trick late 70's twin shock Hondas within the rules, anybody can. You don't have to cross over into another era to build a trick bike. As I've argued with you incessantly, grinding off the disc caliper mounts from '83 model forks is not taking the rules seriously. You can modify the bikes to the nth degree and still keep them within the boundaries.
This whole argument shows that the old, drum brake, no linkage, air cooled evo philosophy leaves too much open for cheating by those who choose not to see the spirit of the era . The rules need stronger definition...........Now Bruce, I'm going away until Tuesday. Are we right for a few brews on Wednesday night 02 Jan ?
-
The reason I run the '83 forks is because they are drum brake forks, which are totally legal in the AHRMA. The disc brake forks you're thinking of are on my Pre '85 bike. I know where you're coming from though.
When Glenn Bell won the last Evo Nationals on a A5 Kawasaki it had a flat slide carby and 43mm forks. I personally don't have a problem with that as the reason he won it is because he is the best rider. You put Maico31 or 090 on a stock bike and me on my modified one, both of them will still kick my arse for one simple reason, they are better riders than me. In any form of motocross, whether modern or vintage, the best rider will almost always win. It's just defining the "Spirit of the Era".
-
Magoo i think using '83 CR forks is within the boundaries of Evo because they are pretty much the same as '81 YZ465 forks, both are 43mm just different brands, KYB and Showa. Fitting YZ465 forks and front wheel to your Honda would make it 100% legal but they are hard to come by.
-
I specifically asked 2 owners, one at CD4 and one at a VIPER meeting why they elected to use large diamater Yamaha forks with twin leading shoe front ends in their bikes, one being a 79 RM400 and the other being a 79 YZ250. Their answer was that the components came from a EVOLUTION bike, albiet a later model. As they beleived that there 1979 RM400 falls into the same EVOLUTION Group as a YZ465, they thought it o/k to run the forks off that bike. The problem that i have is that the forks were never commercially avaliable to purchase in 1979, they were in 1981, some 2 years later but not when the bike was originally manafactured.
The one thing that i have garnered from the hours on this bloody computer researching websites around the world in relation to EVOLUTION MX bikes is that term EVOLUTION essentally relates to a start date (MY - Model Year) of 1978 and taperes off in 1981/2. Understanding that there are some anomilies in this eg: 1983 Husky400 the time period seems to be specific to about 4-5 MY releases. To address this huge development growth that occured during this time, some parts of the world have seen fit to seperate the bikes into EVO 1 & 2. Group 1 targets bikes from 1978 to 1980 and Group 2 1980 to 1982. Reading between the lines this appears to have been done to keep the last of the non-linkage rear suspension YZ's, Maico's & some of the other Euro bikes in their own categrory as they were far superior to the Pre80 Bikes.
-
I agree with you Firko but the modified forks you talk about are on a Pre '85 bike, I wouldn't run them on the Evo bike, I just like winding you up.
As for the swingarm and forks, there is a very good reason I used those at the time. They cost me about $300 compared to the $3,000-$4,000 the Fox equivalents would have cost me, I just simply didn't have enough money. The whole point I'm trying to make is who is going to judge what defines spirit of the era.
As for being silly, I resemble that comment. A quiet little Chardie on the 2nd would be most enjoyable, I'm in.
-
Another thing about this thread, it is bringing on some really good, constructive debate which is a terriffic thing.
-
Bahnsy you're getting picky now. If 43mm YZ forks come from an Evolution era bike then you can use them on another Evolution model bike. There is no specific cutoff year to Evo. The rules are not that comlicated. I tend to agree with you Magoo, your $300 suspension parts do the same job as the expensive Fox's etc without being any better or an unfair advantage.
-
Hi Nathan,
18.7.7.1 a,2007 GCR's
I'll have a crowny.
Happy to buy you a Crowny Noel, but you don't get it for that one...
The rules state that all bike must have a maximum of 7" front, and 4" rear suspension travel. The pre-78 rules say that there's a limit of 9" F & R, but they don't over-ride or rescind the 7 & 4 rule.
Therefore, according to the rules, pre-78 bikes can't have more than 7/4" of travel.
Yes, we all know what is meant, but I'm talking about what is printed in the manual.
:)
I have no problem with the intent of the rules, but they are inviting someone to drive a fleet of trucks through the loopholes.
-
You've lost me on your logic Nathan. If it says 9" for pre 78 then 9" it is. What does it have to do with pre 75 limits?
-
Maico31,
I'm don't think that i am getting picky or at least i hope i'm not. :)
Lest say i have a RM400C fitted with the standard suspension (front & rear) that has been rebuilt and sorted. I also have a set of 43mm front forks with twin leading brakes matched to a set of piggy back Ohlins fromn a 1981/2 Husky, these also have been sorted. By sorted i mean that the springs have been matched to my weight and the hydraulic parts of the units have been refurbished.
Without a doubt i will set a faster lap time on the 43mm units and Ohlins than i will on the standard suspension. To say that a $300 suspension package will do the same job as the expensive Fox's etc without being any better or providing an unfair advantage is not accurate.
I think of it like this. If a rider was competing at an International or National level around 1978/79 and they found themselves running in the Top 5, podiuming now and then but just cant seem to crack it for a race win was offered a suspension package including a set of 43mm front forks with twin leading brakes along with a set of piggy back Ohlins do you think that it would make a difference?
-
The "Spirit of the Era" is jugded by you, yourself. And if you feel happy running "what ever" then do it, but remember if you couldnt get that part or modification back in the era, then is that the "spirit". ??
-
You've lost me on your logic Nathan. If it says 9" for pre 78 then 9" it is. What does it have to do with pre 75 limits?
Because the pre-75 rules are THE vintage rules, and the other classes are added on to them without giving priority to either set of rules.
It's like telling a school kid "You must always obey your mother, and you must always obey your father".
If mum says you've gotta be home by 7pm and dad says you've gotta be home by 8pm, then 7pm it is.
There are a number of ways to fix this part of the VMX rules. I'd prefer to see the common-to-all-eras rules put into one section, with the era-specific rules each being a sub-section.
If someone wants to kick up a fuss at an event over this, as it is currently written (and I promise that it won't be me!), they'd be within their rights to do so. They'd also be a pratt, but that's not the point...
Well written rules minimise/eliminate the opportunities for the wankers to indulge. And would reduce the need for threads like this one... :)
-
I think your misunderstanding what I am trying to get across firko.Mainly the reason why the old Manx's are not raced any more reason is they are just to expensive to fix if damaged.Where as the replica you just order the parts on Monday.The InCA series racing was brilliant and the 50's vintage bikes were very quick AND ridden very hard.I have seen a TZ 125 with bantam cases welded on but no matter how much hp it still has to go through a Bantam frame/suspension.
Where it's silly to enforce OEM style rules is that this drives cost up in a big way, I don't really care what anyone uses so long as it can fit within the original cases/housing.
-
The intent of the rule (in EVO) is to prevent a Mono being modified to a twin shock or a water cooled bike being fitted with Air cooled engine or a disk being replaced with a drum, thats all. If the bike left with twin shocks and had drum brakes and air cooling its OK even is its been modified with period Symonds forks and a set of Ohlins shocks.
Same for pre85 - go the period forks and shock but don't put a rear disk on it if it left the factory with a drum.
Hope that sorts out the confusion
-
The age old problem of the written language. People get out of it what they want to suit their agenda. It will always be that way. Maybe the rules have to be tweaked but you don't have to be a brain surgeon to sort it in you're own head. The minority will sometimes have a go for reasons unknown to most of us which is what you are worried about. There will only ever be an issue if you podium at a title meet, so if your good enough bahnsy maybe worry about it just a little bit, if you are slower than top three then you should be sleeping well.Even this may be taken the wrong way, even though i have written it light heartedly ;D see!
-
Bahnsy if you hunt around on ebay i reckon you could find a set of 43mm forks, an alloy swingarm from a '81 cr250 or 450 and a set of ohlins that need a rebuild for around $300. You'd have to look pretty hard but sounds like that's what Magoo has done.
I have no doubt that you would go faster with ohlins shocks, 43mm forks and twin leading shoe front brakes on a '78 model bike, but they are all Evo legal parts from a YZ465 and '81 Husky aren't they.
What about an '84 CR500 Husky twin shock, that bike is 5 years newer than an RM400n but it's still an Evo bike.
I don't think it matters what year a bike is as long as it's within the Evo period guidelines.
-
With more riders parking their Pre75 machines (given the value of the bike and the cost of repairs) and moving towards the EVO and Pre85 classes to continue their racing, not to mention the new riders that are attracted to the sport, i can see in few years time where the grid of EVOLUTION bikes at a race meeting will consist of these hybrid bikes with huge forks (inc. twin leading brakes), big dollar rear shocks and monster engines, If you don't think this happening now then you would have your head in the sand :)
It concerns me because this is not in the spirit of what I belive EVOLUTION racing was set up for. Many will argue this point because the EVOLUTION era was when the suspension got bigger and better, the bikes actually went well around corners not just in a strait line and you could actually land off a jump without compressing your spine.
From my side i dont care what a rider brings to the start gate, a $20K Fox Factory Replica or a $1K dunga, i am there to have a dip with them all and if i dont come last then i'll have a slightly bigger grin than if I did. The absolute last thing I want to see is 78/79 Maicos, Yamaha's Suzuki's etc that have been butchered to make them competive with the bikes as noted above.
-
Yeah i don't wanna see mega dollar illegal hybrids either. I've been racing the Evo class for 10 years now and the vast majority of the bikes have been within the spirit of the era and i hope it stays that way. Like you said the Evo and pre '85 classes are growing rapidly which is great for the sport but we don't want to turn people away either with the rulebook police going over the top about petty things.
-
I agree with you Bahnsy - cutting up something to make something else is just pure sacrilege unless of course it is several basket cases to start with. Unfortunately there will be a minority (I hope it is so) who will always spend money to get bigger and better and faster etc etc etc however where I race we race on ability and not machines which I think really stays with the original concept and "doing the right thing" and quite often these guys who do spend a fortune are embarassed by something fairly stock.
I also dont think it is something that can be stopped by the rules as after all every single one of us has a moan about how good the Kiwis have it with their much simpler system and we dont want to make ours any worse.
Just my 2 bobs worth as this is one of the better threads I have seen for a while ;D ;D
Rossco (wannabe faster!!)
-
The absolute last thing I want to see is 78/79 Maicos, Yamaha's Suzuki's etc that have been butchered to make them competitive with the bikes as noted above.
I couldn't agree more Bahnsy.
Yamaha may have had the 43mm fork and twin leading brake but lets hope they stay on the yammies. Anyone who butchers bikes in VMX isn't in the spirit of the sport. Isn't one of the philosophies of vmx to preserve the old bikes not butcher them ??? Yes a bitsa bike out of bits that you've collected over time or parts bikes that are only good for just that (parts) is great to build a bike from.
If you need to win that bad you should be out doing it in MX1 or MX2 with the young guys. These old bikes have had their time and now its time to show some respect to them. By saying that I am not trying to diminish competition or racing but its not all about the rider, it's all about the bike.
-
depending on the bike I'm riding my philosophy is ride it like it was meant to be ridden..exception being the RM400..it just wants to kill me outright..here for a short time guys so bottom line is 'enjoy' :D
-
OK... looks like I really didn't pick up on the undercurrent of vintage MX! To me, the whole vintage thing is about reliving a time in a sort of touchy feely way, and having fun racing the things at the same time. Garage queens of course should be as close to original as possible, but for racing, I would have thought that performance mods, whether 'of the day' or not, would be perfectly fine? I love seeing some of the trick stuff people do, and couldn't care less if a 79 RM400 has a 43mm front end on it. I think that's so cool, building bikes that you couldn't back then because you didn't know how, couldn't afford it, or didn't have the luxury of having access to a decade of development.
I have to admit I wouldn't for a moment have thought that adding cartridge emulators to a set of big forks on my HL500 would be against the rules, or that getting my engine built like that one in the VMX article with all manner of trick gear and pipes/carbs, or ading a really nice custom swingarm and multi adjustable YSS shocks, would be a No No...
-
I have a couple of reasons/excuses for running RM250D(83) forks on my RM250T(1980). The standard forks were designed to be run with air -without air they are hopeless-these forks had a bush cast into the outer leg,but over the years these would wear to the point where the forks no longer hold air-the only solution was run heavier fork springs(XR400) and heavier/more oil-still not a nice feel.I also see the later Husky and Yamaha Evo bikes with legal fatter legs and twin leaders and thought, why not-otherwise it is unfair.I believe my 83 drum front and 79 Husky rear is still in the spirit-that's my two bobs worth anyway.
-
spirit of the era to me is the only way to go , if you wanted to get really picky then you shouldn't be able to use modern tyres , modern lubricants , modern compound brake shoes - good lord - you get a performance advantage , tut tut
& what about modern riding gear - do you ban knee braces , leatt braces & all those other andvances that make riding safer & better.
what I don't like seeing on a VMX bike is anything modern that looks out of place - eg: lowboy expansion pipes , fatbars , modern shaped mudguards - as Graeme said - we are trying to recreate the look/sound/smell/feel of moto-x from another time
-
Just to show I am as weird as anyone, I have to agree with Geraldo about mudguards. I can't stand seeing bodgy guards, or modern guards, on Vintage bikes. Sometimes at an event I'll see a bloke with say a 1978 YZ250 and he's got some weird looking Acerbis thing with flutes and flares and worse, it's mounted all wrong and totally ruins the lines of the bike. I wanna go over there, grab him by the scruff of the neck, make him look at the original brochure and then write out 100 times "I will not ruin the looks of a perfectly good vintage motocrossser"!
And just as soon as I can afford it I'll replace the silly looking guards on my RM125, too....
-
HL500, now there's a can of worms in itself and as for tapered bars on vintage bikes, YUK! You see an awful lot at the races and no one says boo about them, but put a set of 43mm forks and a twin leading shoe brake and get accused of cheating. I'm with Graeme, I love seeing trick bikes with trick bits, it adds to the spectacle of vintage racing. I say good luck and well done to anyone who can afford to build and show us his "$20K Fox Factory replica", whether he can ride or not. Coudo's too to the guy who can flog us all on his $500 shitter as well, but you won't see anyone gooing and gahing over it in the pits.Lets face it, we all drool over the factory bikes in the magazines. As for the spirit of vintage racing, I reckon it should be about the fun of racing with like minded people in the dirt and having a laugh afterwards. I personally can't ride for shit, so I guess it won't matter to me if I got protested coz I got some big forks in me evo bike. Is the guy who can afford an '81 Maico 490 or an '84 Husky 500 cheating because he has more disposable cash than the guy who can afford a '78 CR250 or RM400? He definately has an advantage but they still race in the same class. No wonder it's so confusing for anyone wanting to get into the sport.Twin shock, no linkage, drum brakes, air cooled = EVO bike.
-
Graeme. If I run the stock Monty front guards, I will ruin the look of a perfectly good vintage motocrosser! :D Let's face it. Back then, as now, stuff used to get junked off a bike as soon as it got in the shed. I dont think I've ever seen a photo of a VB/VE Monty in its racing days with the OEM front guards on them. So yeah, on goes a PP. But where does it end? Corruption starts with the first free hamburger!
I'm with the previous speakers. Nothing looks tougher than a bike with big, fat conventional forks! 15 inches of suspension and a pipe that'll double as a side stand. That's how I dreamed of them back then, that's how I still love 'em today!
But the modern fat bars on them are simply embarrasing...... :-[
I doubt whether it'll help the average Joe go any faster but he'll sure have a lot more photos taken of his bikes.....
Twin shock, drum brakes, air cooled = Evo bike!
-
How about:
"Evo regs:
The frame, fork externals, swing arm, engine cases, cylinder, triple clamps, brakes, fuel tank, seat and wheel hubs must all come from a bike that was originally manufactured with F & R drum brakes, air cooling and non-linkage rear suspension, or be accurate replicas of the same".
The end.
It's the same as the way things work nowdays, but is clear and unambiguous. No questions about whether later model guards are legal, or whether mix-and-match is OK.
Simple, no?
-
I think most people have valid points. I too like the look of beefy looking forks (I run 38mm YZ250G forks in my YZ125G which normally runs 36mm) and I use DG and Vintage Iron pipes. I also use twin leading front brakes on the '80 YZ125G, but to me they were all available in the day (except Vintage Iron) and that bike is legal for pre81 125cc racing here in NZ. I do try to keep my bikes looking as close as I can to what they would have looked like in their day. The funny thing is, is that I still dont beat anyone who normal would beat me even though I have some trick bits on the bike. Over here we generally race on natural terrian tracks, most of them have grass in the morning and can be damp and slippery so the best proformance inhancing piece of equipment you can have is a good set of tires. For you guys over there I can see that suspension would play the major role as you are racing on made MX tracks with jumps etc.
When the "spirit of the era" is spoken of I believe it is up to the individual to decide that his or hers
1978 125/250/400 is within the "spirit" if newer parts are added to the bike. If you believe you are at an unfair disadvantage on that bike standard or even with hot-up parts from '78 then maybe you should look at a bike that is more advanced or nearer the end of the twinshock era??
I can see this topic is close to everyones heart and the rights and wrongs are probably never going to be agreed upon by everyone but it is interesting to read what people think on the matter of evo or (post78 non-linkage/aircooled) bikes are all about.
At some point in time do you think with pre85 getting bigger that your rules will put an era limit to the Evo class??
-
This is how i see it, now this is my opinion so please dont shoot me down.
Lets wind the clock back. Its 1979 and i see myself as a front runner at an interclub level and pretty handy at a state level. I start to look to what performance advantages i can gain from my bike, i go to my respected motorbike shop and they tell me that i can get a set of ohlins for the rear and if i've got enough coin i can get a set of Simmond or Fox forks.
Now i have a brilliant idea, i get hold of Doctor Who and his Tardus and i go forward in time to 1981. I get a a set of 43mm Yamaha units complete with twin leading shoes, i come back to 1979 and graft them in and go racing, i now have a clear advantage to the rest of the field. Obviously this is absurd, so why do we allow it in 2007?
My interpretation of the "Spirit of the ERA" is just that, the spirt of the ERA, wether it be specifically 1979, 1980 etc. If we just let the EVOLUTION blur into anything as long as it is drum braked, air cooled and non-linkage suspension then we might as well just just drop the name EVOLUTION and call it the MY81 class because that is the spec that all bikes will be built to irrespective of when the bike was actually built.
-
Ths is funny to me...here in US AHRMA has I thought pretty specific class rules, and in fact I volunteer as a tech inspector. The biggest debate recently was the flat slide carby thing-now this applies to all Vintage and up. In Post Vintage, like the EVO classes you have we have thre area classes.
1. Historic most bikes 1975-1977( sounds like your pre-78 class, maybe that's where it came from as it looks like in Oz these classes have been run longer)
2. GP 1978-1981 about the same all twin shock except YZ
3. Ultima-allows Water cooled linkage bikes as long as no disc.
What is controversial is the only flat slide carbs allowed are mikuni Tms which were available in 1982-83-the Kehein(sp?) PJ,PWK etc are not allowed..oh yea Lectrons are alowed w/o powerjet in all Post Vintage classes.
Also controversial is the rule forbidding front drum conversions of bikes originally equipped with front disc. This of course, precludes all 82-up KXs, of which many would be otherwise legal....also 84 Cr.s due to this. Mostly, the one that hurts is the 83 KTM illegal since it came witha front Brembo disc...yet the 84 KTM( when they went back to a drum) is with USD WP forks( which were terrible anyway).
I have to say I would catch a modified 81 CR swingarm, or a converted KX, 84 CR etc, but I have probably let an 83 KTM by since it was so visually similar to the 82.
This past year twin leading shoe drums were banned from Historic class too. not a big deal to me. I have somehow been able to make a Maico brake work great-even with the stock short arm and all.
BTW since we define here for example GP up to 1981, the 43 mm forks are allowed.So, you can modify an earlier bike within the class to how it would have been possible up to 1981. The CR forks are also allowed since they are deemed the same as the YZ forks.
Still, that is not how it really was. Anyone who was racing 81, if they were racing a 79 bike-was only doing so due to lack of $. What I am saying is that at least I never saw anyone put later model production components on a two tear old bike then( and the cost then would have made the Simons seem cheap).
I think this is a delicate balance. We do not want to have so many ruls that it drives away new riders, or even suppliers. We need people reproducing parts, there is a finite supply.
Conversely, if we fail to enforce reasonable guidelines, we are not Vintage racing. There is some push here in the US for less and less rules. Many want now to have vintage classes for say 87-95 model bikes. I think this is because they are cheaper, and easier for some suppliers to get parts for....at our local club we have a decade class-puportedly for 10 yr old bikes. This of course changes every year, but on top of that they allow modern bikes in that class too, only not scored. Well, at some point more and more will get the modern bikes, since they really are cheaper, and cheaper to maintain(until you get to the 98 up four stroke era) and fewer and fewer race the old bikes. If some want to have vet classes on modern bikes, and this is really an untapped market-more power to them. ..but it is not vintage racing. At 39(40 in July), I have little interest in "my generation's" bikes, namely since there are few in my generation, and I raced this era(88-95), have no interest in re-living it-or roamcing a time when more and more were injured, seriously and fatally...yum.
We still have a great era from late 60s to early mid 80s that at least here in the US was the heyday of mx. I was too young, and parents couldn't afford to send me mxing. I now get to race the bikes I only watched as a child. Not only that, but my 7 yr old daughter loves the old bikes too. I ask you, how cool is that?
MJ
-
The evo class it is simply all parts being oem or after market can be used as long as they were avalible or have came from another evo bike from the period as for hybirds why not once again as long as you dont use any non evo parts and only period after market parts all you are doing is trying to make a better evo bike lets remember IT IS YOUR CHOISE what you race or build to race and if you can find the parts or aford to buy them then build what is in your limits and do it have fun and build a great bike the more the better the racing all the bike are only limited buy the riders ability if they are maintained to a good race order. The rules have to start somewhere and this needs to be done by rider input but remember not rules for your own agenda rules for the racing of evo bikes we need more evo bikes and events not less
-
KAW440,
As you noted, "The rules have to start somewhere and this needs to be done by rider input but remember not rules for your own agenda rules for the racing of evo bikes we need more evo bikes and events not less" follows my same thought's.
What i have trouble with is that when you finnaly get people along to a race meeting and all that they witness is a sea of tricked up bikes and look at the $ spent, do you think that they are going to bother?
I want riders to drag their bike out of the garage give it a slap and tickle and think that they have half a shot at being competive without spending thousands of $
-
good reply bahnsy...every body likes the 43mm forks but the only evo bike i have seen come out as a production bike with them and is legal for evo racing is the yz250 465h.the 250 had em but didnt have the twin leading brake but the 465 did...81model im talkin about hear....hondas kawas and suzuks all had either water cooling or linkage suspension in that year which makes them illegal....but racers like to steal parts off them and fit them to the early .....(ala cr25078 79model hondas for example).....and suzukis as well same year...thats my two bobs worth.....
-
I cant understand why it burns you so much? You keep yours original, others do their thing, we all go riding together!
-
I'm trying like hell to promote Post78 to Pre85 racing as an entity in Victoria. As we entice more riders to the sport (The numbers are up 30+% in 2007 Vs 2004/5) the organising group are asked what is legal to modify and what is not, as i have stated many times in this discussion, i really don't care, build it, bring it and well find a class for you to race it.
However, i am concerned that we are allowing bikes to be built that arn't in the spirit of the ERA, after all EVOLUTION never existed (as a specific class) before 1985 and probably later.
Pre78 and its preceding classes have clearly defined cut-off dates and model specific tables advising of allowable bikes, yet Pre85 and EVOLUTION are not defined. In the case of Pre85 is it assumed that this class includes bikes built from Post78 to 1984 and EVOLUTION classes run in parrarell?
Under the current rules the Pre85 (which are yet to be published so i may stand corrected) and EVOLUTION classes do not run in parrarell, rather they intertwine with each other. Using the intent of the Pre78 rules a Hybrid EVO bike should not be allowed to compete in a Pre85 race as the bike is not as the manufacturer built it, yet a standard bike with year specific modifications could.
Q: How do you administer that and be fair to all riders that come to compete at a race meeting?
A1: Provide 100 seperate classes that allow each and every bike to fit into their respective category.
(or)
A2: Have a clear set of rules that define what can and cant be done.
-
Why is there so many problems with evo twin shock drum brake air cooled bikes that is the class use parts that are period swap parts what ever you ride. The dollar seems to be a problem for some before you nail someone for a trick bike think of how much money you have spent over the years racing or if you have wanted something badly and how you found the money to buy it if it fits in the evo class buy using nos parts after market parts trick parts if you find them use em it is that simply if every bike was the same and had no differences then you would have no interest in the bikes see one seen them all any way wasnt that the era of racing when alot of mods was made by teams looking for the edge
-
I'll stand corrected, but i never witnessed the factroy Honda or Suzuki teams use a set of Yamaha forks with twin leading shoes in their bikes. They may have tried to copy/emulate them, but not to my understanding simply bolt them in.
-
I reckon by the time scrutineering is done and all protests are soughted, it'll be dark and the only racing will have to be done at the pub! What about a class called " the 100% legal to the the era, spirit, nth degree, forget about having fun, just make sure your bike is right and if you spent more than an hour or $500 on it, don't come." Oh sorry, it seems we are already going to have that one. Don't think the starting grids will be full but....
-
Evo has been running for 10 years without a hiccup!! Why is all this bullshit going on now just because it made it's way to the MA rulebook??
-
Here's another scenario: I think I might want to relive my youth and go vintage motocross racing with my mates, so I drag my 1979 CR250 out of the shed. She gets a lick and a promise, fires up no worries but the fork tubes are all rusty and pitted. I discover it will take a bit of effort and about $300-$400 to have them re-chromed. Damn! Luckily though the local wrecker has a perfect whole front end including triple clamps and front wheel from a 1981 CR250 that will bolt straight in, for only $200. Yeehah, I'm away. Except that I now find out that because those forks are from a single shock, watercooled bike, even though they are only 1mm bigger in diameter (37mm to 38mm), I won't be allowed to get scored in the evolution class. What to do? Can't really afford to pay near $400 for the re-chroming, don't want the hassles at the races with a non conforming bike, after all I'm only doing it for some fun and relaxation from the daily grind. I think I'll push her back in the shed and watch some re runs of Bourkes Backyard. Stuff the VMX, it's just too hard!
This is the kind of thing that will stop the average Joe from getting the bikes out of the shed, not the Fox replicas or Hybrid bikes. Surley common sense must prevail. By the way, if your bike doesn't conform after you take out the third place trophy and the guy who came fourth protests, do you get your entry fee back? The can of worms just keeps getting bigger.
-
Holy shit I just come in from the garage after fitting a set of yz465 forks, shock and swing arm to an xt550, reshaping the sub frame so I can fit an it465 seat and modifiying and mx400b tank to fit over the twin carbs....any idea what pipe I should run? All evo legal of course.
The evo rules are so simple it's not funny why do people try to complicate things,
OEM in the gcr's means the bike was manufactured as a Air cooled, drum braked, non linkage bike so the bike can be run standard or modified with parts from another bike that also left the factory in that form.
Fit something from a later era and it's cheating .....simple.
You can't fit a set of '77 maico forks to a '73 cr 250 in the pre '75 class so why should it be allowed in the evo class.
In saying that almost every time I front up to a meeting something is not letter perfect, but I'm not going to blow $70 whining about it.
If you don't like the rules for the class, sell up and ride another class.
-
If I want race Pre 60, 60-65, 65-70, 70-75 & Pre78 the rules and regulations are very specific, why can’t they be for Evolution and Pre85?
The rules as they stand don’t make sense. As I originally questioned, how does someone interpret the following?
18.7.12.2 Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed
Yet the next rule says that;
18.7.12.3 All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured.
a) No linkage suspension,
b) No Disc brakes,
c) Air cooled motors.
If the period is defined by OEM bikes that were fitted with no linkage suspension, drum brakes, and air cooled engines then parts from models manufactured from 1978 to 1981 (roughly) can be used. How then can you apply 18.7.12.2?
The other issue is that the only class’s that say you can’t run age groups (modern MX aside) are Evolution & Pre85, Why?
I would like to think that we are challenging individuals to talk about what they think should be reflected in the GCR handbook. If we as riders who ride these bikes don’t do it and hopefully get it right, someone else who does not understand the era and what it is about will, and they will stuff it up and it real hard to recind a rule.
Note 2008 GCR’s for Pre85 state;
18.7.14 Pre 1985 class
18.7.14.1 Pre 85 class can be run as a National Championship, and can be independent of other classes
18.7.14.2 Pre 85 eligibility. Acceptable machines for pre 85 are machines built up to and including the 1984 models. The only exception to this GCR is where the model remains unaltered after this date. The onus of proof of eligibility shall rest wholly on the rider or entrant of this machine
18.7.14.3 Modifications using later equipment are not allowed.
18.7.14.4 All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured
18.7.14.5 Classes
(a) Solo 125cc
(b) Solo 250cc
(c) Solo 263cc and over
18.7.14.6 No age group classes will be run.
So if you have a 83 RM500 with a front disc, should it be converted back to a drum brake to comply with 18.7.14.3 ?
-
Banshy,
18.7.12.3 means
To be evo eligible the bike must have been manufactured with all three critera met,you can mix and match parts from other manufactures of a bike that left the factory again with all three critera met.
18.7.12.2 means,
You can't fit a air cooled motor from a linkage bike to a evo bike.
In the case of the Rm 500 if the disc comes from a '83 kx or '84 cr then it's fine as it was derived from another pre '85 bike, but if it comes from a '87 cr 250 then no as it came from a bike that missed the cut off date.
This is a rule that applies to all classes not just evo/pre'85, you cant fit a set of 77 maico forks to a 73 cr250 in the pre '75 class.
The evoloution class has been around for alot longer than either pre '78 or pre '85 and originally was a simple class that catered for any bike built after dec 1974 that was air cooled, drumbraked and
non linkage.
Since the inception of pre '85 it has become a bit of a grey area for some and that is understandable when you consider that a 1984 Husky 500 can race evo but a 1980 kx has to race pre '85.
Most of this isn't a problem at club level as no one could be bothered wasting $70 beer money on a protest, it only becomes an issue at title meetings. Just so you know this has been going on for years even before evo came along, there where eligibility issues with pre '75 bikes.
Might I suggest you dig a big hole and bury that rule book, and go for a ride to clear the head.
-
FWIT Bahnsy has my vote. When I looked at returning to Motocross VMX caught my eye. Of course you check out what you are allowed to have aka pre 75 here in WA and away you go and run by the current rules - as for any sport anywhere else in the world. Let me exagerate the point - if I could fit a set of 2007 forks from a CR 250 on my Evo bike is that OK - no it shouldn't be - where does it stop. I think period correct mods are OK ie pre 75, pre 78, pre 85 or whatever but getting gear from later models and retrofitting I believe has caused some problems in sidecars and I dont want to see it happen here? Of course you can trick your bike - with stuff available from the time - dont abuse the fact that later models are available.
Next
Rossco
-
Hi.
how about this
Maybe year cut of dates are the way to go,
evo 1 up to 1980, (this could include upgraded pre78 bikes with earlier than 80 parts)
evo 2 after 1980,
so the earlier bike modified with later parts race in evo 2,
grid them up together and score separately at club level ,
depending on entries you would run them separately at title events
The current rules do seem to need the definitions clarifying (ie OEM/ and later model [period?]Parts )
Noel
-
I can't believe that anyone would want to complicate a simple system. As Maico31 said, there has been no problems before, so why start to create confusion now. By what Noel is saying, you can run a 1978 CR againt a 1979 CR but not a 1980? I don't get it. Are you trying to tell me a 1978 CR250 isn't competitive against a 1984 Husky or a 1981 YZ? Of course it is.
It's ok to put a pair of $2500 44mm Fox Forx but not ok to use $100 41mm Honda forks. The more complicated you make the rules the more open to cheating it becomes. Keep it simple.
-
Despite stuff I've written earlier in this thread I have to agree with Maico31 that the Evo movement has been in business for a decade now with comparitively few problems. While I understand your concerns Bahnsy I think you may be spending a tad too much time thinking about it.
-
You are right Magoo,
I think it is a bit silly too ,
I personally want to ride my near stock 77' CR125 in EVO allpowers
But I understand Bahnsy trouble with explaining to prospective new riders what fits where.
If it seems there are the numbers of riders that are put off riding 78 /79 models against later model bikes
tweak my previous rule to
evo1 (as previous post)
evo2 all in race what you brung.(air cooled ,twin shock , drum brake)
again race together score separately
-
It seems that Honda forks and twin leading shoe brakes are the bulk of the problem, the brakes in my mind are a safety thing and should be allowed, and most could afford to do it, IF THEY WANTED TO. Honda RC bikes have had different variants of 43mm Showa forks from as far back as 1977 and I guess if I had the cash and made enough effort back then to get a set I probably could have. Honda didn't bring them to a production bike until 1983 even though they had been around a long time beforehand. Still If I fit a set I'll be "cheating" and if I go one step further and fit a 480 engine so I can have a big bore Honda EVO bike, I once again will be "cheating". If however I stick with the rules to the letter, and fit a set of Husky 40mm forks, twin shoe brake and a CR/WR 500 air cooled engine from 1984 to my Honda, even though it will no longer be a Honda persay, I will be fine and allowed to race. I have now destroyed my Honda and have the Hybrid bike that everyone fears, but am legal to race. Go figure. For probably 90% of us, it doesn't matter what we ride, the top 10% will still be able to beat us on an XR75. Twin shock, no linkage, air cooled = EVO. A '79 CR with a 480 motor aint going to be any different than a '79 RM400 with an 84mm piston (460cc or thereabouts, which is easily done). In my mind no one is cheating, they just have different tastes. It's more about whatever floats your boat than cheating.
-
how much diference will a set off forks make to a couple off old fat pricks haveing a bit off fun on a sunday and really what would you rather mow the lawns and have cups off tea with the relatives when the drop over .or get muddy waste money drink piss talk shit tell fibs isnt it good to feel young again ;D
-
The point of what i have been trying to get across is being missed. The Evolution & Pre85 rules are going to be modifyed, manipulated and changed to suit whoever wants to challenge them and rubber stamped by whichever MA commissioner is in place in the ensuing years. I have been asking the members of this forum to field their views on how they perceive the current rules and what could be changed to make them rock solid so they can't screwed with for years to come.
If we are happy to sit back and wait for the 2009 or later GCR's to come out that ban the use of (for example) FOX forks or 43mm forks then so be it, I'll crawl back in my hole and do nothing. Pease don't tell me that i am overcomplicating this or giving it more attention than it warrants, i consider it to be passion for preservation. As many have mentioned, it has been good for many yeras, does this automatically mean that it will bo o/k for the next 10?.
-
Well to answer your question Bahnsy, I think that you can only live for the moment on this. I'm on the NSW Classic Commision and it is not an issue with us, and I know most of the MA Commissioners and it's not an issue with them. I don't see any problem with the way it is right now, all's fine and happy so let's leave it that way.
-
The way things are falling Bahnsy, the introduction of pre 90 is the biggest threat to Evo.
-
Magoo, your comment;
"I don't see any problem with the way it is right now, all's fine and happy so let's leave it that way"
Is this the case for NSW only? Are you able to say the categorically same for MV, MQ, MWA etc?
-
What a great thread; every opinion has valid points and so far no one has got the shits in expressing it!
For my first race I'm hoping the Scrutineers will point me in the direction of whatever class my bike falls into. I don't care which class, I just want to ride/race against whoever is on the grid.
But I can afford to have such a simplistic attitude because others have sorted/are sorting the rules for the good of the sport.
One side of the coin is the 'she'll be right' attitude.
It's been good for many years; let's not over engineer a simple plan.
The old 'if it looks OK from five metres' rule/concept suits me just fine.
But good onya Bahnsy for wanting to ensure the system is sorted and detailed and tidied up; and can't be pooftered with for the foreseeable future.
An earlier thread about 'where have all the old boys gone' had several stories of people leaving VMX and not returning because of altercations over the rules.
In the last few days Mr. Motocross great Mark Pace was mentioned as having walked away because it all got too hard.
What a crying shame!
A wise old Army Officer once said to me:
"Rules are there for the guidance of wise men; and for the blind obedience of fools".
-
Bahnsy, I don't see a problem with the regs as they are intended, followed and enforced: Evo bits on Evo bikes.
I struggle with the wording, but the basics are definitely right.
There will always be bikes that are hurt by any way you classify bikes: The YZ125H is not Evo legal because it's water cooled, but is not so flash as a pre-85 bike; the YZ125E is a pretty poor Evo bike, but too different to the YZ125D to be a carry-over pre-78 bike, etc.
The way I see it, if you have a bike that you love, you'll ride/race it regardless. Alternatively, you'll buy something that's as competitive as possible within the rules, and race it.
Any change you make to suit a bike (or group of bikes) will equally disadvantage other bikes. Even if you see a fault in the current rules, at least they're a known quantity - people have spent time and money on their bikes based on the current rules - so if you want to make a significant change, then the apple-cart will be upset, potentially badly.
-
I love your thread Wombat, absolutely fantastic. No Bahnsy, I can't speak for the others, only the ones I personally know.
I know so many guys who have walked away from VMX because of too many rules, I just think that stuff being an anal retentive pain in the arse, lets just simplify the whole sport and ride/race with as any of our mates as possible. If you complicate this HOBBY, that's right, HOBBY, with too many rules people give up and ride moderns. KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid.
-
As much as i want to see the rules tidied up, the last thing that i want to is see is pages and pages in the GCR's that confuse people. If i was about to bulid a Pre75 (or earlier) bike i reckon that i would need legal council to define what i can and can't do then make sure that he/she comes with me to every race meeting to sort it out with the powers to be on the day. EVOLUTION and Pre85 needs this like a STD :)
-
If you want to get into Evo, just buy anything with 2 shocks and an air cooled engine as long as it's original, and if it's a yamaha YZ it needs to be air cooled and non linkage suspension. None of those bikes come with disc brakes so that's already taken care of. What needs tidying up about that?
-
Its simple, I've had enough of trying to appease riders at a meeting that want to argue why rider A is allowed to race with a magura hydraulic clutch system, or why rider B on a RM400 has modified his barrel to fit a Yamaha V Force reed system or why rider C has a PVL billet ignition system is fitted to his Maico and the list goes on. If you are a rider that simply turns up at 8am, does briefing, goes back to his pits, races each race then goes home at the completeion of the days proceedings, then you wont be exposed to this sort of goings on.
With all the posts to this thread, it is divided into various groups as to what is OEM, what is in the spirit of the ERA etc, that and the points above are what needs tidying up.
-
Maybe it's different in Qld but i've seen bugger all bitching about bikes going on up here. Everyone seems happy to turn up, mark out a natural terrain track and go racing and have a great time. The social side of it is just as important as the racing for most of us.
-
Maico31, maybe thats the difference, you guys mark out your own natural terrian tracks (do you have scrutineering and MA officals at your meetings?). If you had to race on man-made MX tracks with table tops and large jumps things could be different?? Just a thought ;)
-
Yes we have scrutineering and officials present. No one really checks the legality of anyones bikes, it's mainly a trust thing, but if something was obviously illegal i'm sure a keen eye would spot it. We get up to 100 riders at our meetings so they must be doing something right.
-
Bahnsy, I am one of those boffins you describe so well, who do you think you are to describe ma,mv volounteers, officals in this way.
Scenario 4, 1980 KX 250 is a single shock linkage rear end, pre 85 bike.
The rules for pre 75 & earlier started off like much like the current evo class rules,very basic and over time have evolved to what we have now.
Anyone can write to the (MA)classic mx committee with concerns,changes, additions to rules and it will be discussed and voted on by them, you can also apply to be join the classic mx commision.
Additions to the supp regs for up coming Aussie titles could be in place if people made the effort to write to the MA classic management committee.
Motorcycling Victoria backed, Victorian classic motorcross management committe run the VCM series which has an evo class, evo class was introduced in 2007 as per GCR's.
The class turned out to be very popular with no problems encountered, however parts such as 83 CR or 83 RM forks are not allowed.
Hybrid bikes made from EVO bike parts or aftermarket parts from the era are acceptable.
-
While I commend Bahnsy and Nathans concerns that potential cheats are hiding behind every tree just waiting to manipulate the rulebook and ruin our sport for ever, the reality of it all is that it's probably never going to happen.
I've been involved in the sport since 1989 and have seen a lot of dodgy bikes turn up at race meetings. Thankfully the self governing aspect of vintage racing has ensured that those 'rule benders' recieve a polite tap on the shoulder and be told what illegalities are adorning their bikes and how to fix the problem. Just about all of the offenders have taken the criticisms on board and within a short time were playing by the status quo. Those that arc'd up and refused to change their bikes were, after a while either told not to bring the bike back or gave up and moved on to bother another sport. Thankfully these blokes can be counted on one hand over a 20 year period.
The bottom line-----Don't worry boys, the vintage community looks after and sorts out its own. Have a happy New Year.
-
Dear Pigmy
Your reply "Bahnsy, I am one of those boffins you describe so well, who do you think you are to describe ma,mv volounteers, officals in this way" Curiously i wonder what i wrote that has got you so riled. My comment was;
If we are of the belief (As YSS posted "The rules are made by MA , not us") that a bunch of Management boffins from MA and their local affiliates MA(V), MA(NSW) etc. sit in a room and come up with the new rules then we/us/you are mistaken.
Changes to, and the inclusion of new rules are put forward by MA licence holders via their respective Management Committee's. Yes MA has the final word on them, but they don't initiate them. I think that the reality from MA's point of view is that the least amount of changes would be the best situation as they would take a position of "If it ain't broke, then don’t fix it"
The word boffin aside (which according to the websters dictionary is slang for a scientist engaged in research) and that i am one year out in the Kawasaki scenaro, is the information blatantly incorrect and/or disrespectfull?
-
.... rider A is allowed to race with a magura hydraulic clutch system, or why rider B on a RM400 has modified his barrel to fit a Yamaha V Force reed system or why rider C has a PVL billet ignition system is fitted to his Maico and the list goes on.
Hydro clutch? Who cares!? Assuming someone does care (and isn't just using it as a distraction/red herring to hide their own bike's illegalities), then it is probably legal on an Evo bike.
V-Force? Did the RM400 have reeds to start with? If so, then it's legal.
PVL ignition? Definitely A-OK.
I see the source of your frustration. It's well and good to say that things are self-regulating and nobody is riding for sheep-stations, but as a scrutineer, if you pull anyone up on anything other than spectacularly blatant cheating, their first response will almost inevitably be "but so-and-so has a such-and-such on his bike! Why are you picking on me!?".
If you follow all of the possible paths, you end up with only a couple of possible outcomes:
Everyone turns a blind eye; or you crack down hard on everyone.
Either option will piss some/many people off.
Alternatively, taking a positive, pro-active approach by ensuring the rules are carefully worded and enforcable eliminates all this guff and stress.
-
Now Now, come on boys! This thread has been a great example of courtesy, restraint and respect for others opinions. Let's not get niggly. I think my old mate Phil has got it all in perspective. Dodgy bikes and dodgy owners don't hang around long. We have been self policing for years now and to tighten any percieved loopholes wouldn't be worth the effort.
Surprisingly there have only been a small number of rule fudgers in the 20 years I've been sniffing around old bikes and rarely do they last very long in the sport. The one exception is a well known Queenslander who has had rule book blindness for nearly as long as the sport has been around. Right from the early days of pre 75 when he fitted 77 model forks and engine top end on his '73 CR125 right through to his reasonably recent CR480 retro converted to twin shock, he has shown a serious inability to understand the rules that the rest of us take as gospel. Thankfully he rarely leaves Queensland these days.
-
With Regard to Self Regulation:
I've seen it in action, and provided you remain within the one club/class/area, it will serve you well.
But look at the stress people feel when they go further afield.
Before the Coffs Nats, I was shit-scared that I'd get picked up for something... Is the post-75 crank in my pre-75 bike legal? What about the post-75 rear hub on the same bike? What about the alloy brake arm on my pre-70 bike?
Etc.
All of these are trivial things, and I feel they're within the spirit of the rules, but they also live in the grey area of the rulebook, and I'd potentially be at the mercy of a suitably uptight/vindictive scrutineer... (and yes, my first response would be to point out how wide-spead such things are on other people's bikes..).
Sure, the Coffs Nats turned out to be free of any of that sort of shit, and it was great, but the stress of the unknown was there - and I know I was far from the only one feeling it.
Well written rules benefit everybody, and harm nobody.
edit: Upon further reflection, I've recognised two other points.
1. Concise rules make it easier, not harder. No stressing about whether your bike is legal or whether you're gonna get hosed by someone who has found a more liberal interpretation of the rules.
2. Dammit.... got distracted by work stuff. I forget now.
-
Nathan, Firko,
You are both right and I personally couldn't give a rats who turns up and on what. As i have said before, Build It, Bring It & We'll find a class for you to race it. Every one is also correct in that the EVO movement has been running sweet without to many issues for many years, if i can gage from some of the forum members, better than 12. The issue is that, as Pigmy commented, the EVO rules only found there way into the GCR's last year. If someone wants to run the most exotic hybid that you couldn't even imagine to build yourself, i would be the one taking the photo's of it and drooling over the prospect of owning and riding it myself.
Now that the GCR's are in place we now have the contingent (a minority i may add) of riders that want to question, and then argue over a bikes validity against the GCR's. All i want to do is race with my mates, watch other mates make fools of themselves then have a few drinks & laughs afterwards without the greif as noted above.
-
Actually what i want is;
- 4 Classic Dirt (styled) events in 1 year. (not race meetings)
- One in Qld, One in NSW, One at Barrabool and 1 grass track locations.
Just go ride with my mates, drink and be merry and go home stuffed, hanging out for the next one.
;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
Nathan the nervousness you felt at Coffs is natural for your first venture into the Nats concept. We all worry about that unforseen situation. I was myself concerned about whether my alloy swingarm would pass muster for pre 70 and I wrote the bloody rulebook!
If every potential situation was covered by the rulebook it would be as thick as a brick and too complicated. The self regulation system has worked perfectly for twenty years and in my time at the pointy end of eligibility legislation we've only had two major shit fights that have needed legal interpitation. The first situation, the infamous Vern Grayson Cheney Triumph legality case resulted in the bike being permanantly banned from pre '65 and Vern, a great racer and his beautiful bike being lost to the sport forever. The other case, the Frank Veradi Pre '65 BSA Special case still raises its ugly head as it almost did in Coffs Harbour. I mention these cases for the following reason. In the Grayson case it went to civil court and eventually the High court. Vern had the services of a QC and a room full of legal experts were called by both the defence and MA's legal team to give opinion on the legality of the bike. I still have reams of paperwork covering the case and in the end it still came down to opinion, not written fact.
With the Frank Veradi BSA case the prosecuters(MA) accepted that Veradi had built the bike prior to 1965 and had viewed many photographs and films of the bike in action over a forty year span. The bone of contention was as the bike was in a continuous program of improvement, when did the bike become so improved that it was no longer a legitimate pre 65 bike? Once again there was nothing the rulebook could tell us what we didn't already know. The bike had period suspension and hubs/wheels, a legit engine and had been proven beyond doubt that the bike had been racing prior to 1965. Despite the inarguable rulebook legal aspects of the bike, it was still protested every time it raced and still is to this day because the bikes detractors claim it's been modified from its pre 65 condition.
These cases were extremely intense and overly detailed in their complexity but in the end the most well researched rulebook wouldn't have helped. Opinion was the deciding factor in both cases. The human being is the most vigilant of observers and if you've got a paddock full of folks who know their stuff which we do at any race meeting, that meeting of minds usually offers up an opinion that is almost certainly going to be spot on. If when building a bike you come to a situation where you may have doubts as to the legality of the modification, use the rulebook as a guide but always seek a second, third or fourth opinion. You'll eventually find what you need to know.
To my knowledge the above two cases are the only ones in our sports history to need such an intense examination of the case. 99.99% of the rest have been settled by common sense and good knowledge
-
that was a interesting read firko, i had no idea this sort of protest could go that far in the legal sense.
any chance of posting a pic of both those bikes involved to relate to the story ?
-
Bahnsy, You represent Viper which run pre 78,80,85,90 & modern classes.
There is no Evo class, why would you bring up this debate when viper have no
intention of adding an evo class.
Viper force 1980 and later model evo class bikes to run pre 85.
First 2007 Viper newsletter reads Evo class dropped for 2007, (reason given it only will
affect one rider) who just happens to own a 81 490 Maico.
If Viper moved to Evo it would be huge and would encourage those forgotten models
out racing, just like the rule makers intented.
Now you know whats pissed me off
-
Hoony....I've just gone through my computer photo files and can't find a a shot of either bike. I know I've got shots on transparencies but it's too much of a hassle to scan them. Maybe Maico31 or another Queenslander will have a shot of Verns gorgeous Cheney and perhaps someone took a photo of Frank Veradis BSA at the Coffs Harbour Nats or maybe a West Aussie may be able to help. I did a huge five page colour spread for Dirt Action on Verns bike and the case back in the June '98 issue .
-
Well said Pigmy, Find it very strange that Bahnsy re Viper, dropped the Evolution Class for 07 without any consultation to its Members, and now opens up this thread ?
-
so that decision only affected one person .
and what did he think about that.
or did nt matter to the powers that be .
was there not enough competitors in evo in 07
-
Hoony....I've just gone through my computer photo files and can't find a a shot of either bike. I know I've got shots on transparencies but it's too much of a hassle to scan them. Maybe Maico31 or another Queenslander will have a shot of Verns gorgeous Cheney and perhaps someone took a photo of Frank Veradis BSA at the Coffs Harbour Nats or maybe a West Aussie may be able to help. I did a huge five page colour spread for Dirt Action on Verns bike and the case back in the June '98 issue .
hi firko i just went and had a look at my june 98 dirt action issue and it hasnt got verns bike in it....it has got a maico aw400 owned by edgar phipps....looks the goods too....ill go and have a look at my other mags though....cheers
-
I know the answer - we reintroduce the AMA claiming rule!!!!!! - then when somebody turns up on a bike I really like I can get it for $15 and go and win everything????
How far do you think I will get?
cheers
Rossco
-
Sounds like some sour grapes appearing now ::). I think VIPER's rolling along quite nicely thank you. I managed to race one bike in four different events last year. Can't argue with that........ ;D
-
O/K, a couple of things for the record.
1. "Bahnsy" is one of 5 people that represent the VIPER Members.
2. Correct, the EVOLUTION specific class was dropped for 2007. We then altered the age classes to be EVOLUTION & Pre80.
This was the case all the way through 2007. For clarification please see http://www.vipermx.com/schedule.htm (http://www.vipermx.com/schedule.htm)
3. EVOLUTION in season 2006 would start off with 10-15 riders in the first race and dwindle away for the remaining races as riders preserved themselves and their bikes for the age and championship classes. This was one (1) of the factors in shifting the EVOLUTION focus. Perhaps it was a wrong decision, I'll cop that.
4. VIPER don't force anyone to do anything. We try our best to provide a race format that allows everyone to get plenty of riding.
All i have been trying to do is get a foundation understanding about EVOLUTION racing, nothing more, nor less. I apologize to the forum members for the actions of certain individuals that saw fit, under an alias to air dirty laundry.
I will now retreat, genuinely shattered.
-
Good on'ya Rod. You and the team do a GREAT JOB! Hold your head high son....... ;)
-
Hey Bahnsy, welcome to the world of club politics.
-
Well I for one think it's great to see a little VIPER in-fighting. For a while there it looked to all the world like NSW couldn't get its act together and was full of malcontents and draconian nazi wannabes posing as volunteer officials, while Victoria, Queensland and WA were icons of Vintage errr... Heaven. But now we see the truth!!!
Actually, I don't think the thread was supposed to be a whinge about VIPER, Bahnsy posted a perfectly good question about Evo and we've had a whole lot of mostly constructive discussion. Let's keep it like that.
-
nothing whatsoever to do with the topic but does this mean I get the first post for 2008!!!!!
You beauty :D :D :D :D
-
Oh well, that seems to be the end of that then.
-
Nathan the nervousness you felt at Coffs is natural for your first venture into the Nats concept. We all worry about that unforseen situation. I was myself concerned about whether my alloy swingarm would pass muster for pre 70 and I wrote the bloody rulebook!
If every potential situation was covered by the rulebook it would be as thick as a brick and too complicated. The self regulation system has worked perfectly for twenty years and in my time at the pointy end of eligibility legislation we've only had two major shit fights that have needed legal interpitation. The first situation, the infamous Vern Grayson Cheney Triumph legality case resulted in the bike being permanantly banned from pre '65 and Vern, a great racer and his beautiful bike being lost to the sport forever. The other case, the Frank Veradi Pre '65 BSA Special case still raises its ugly head as it almost did in Coffs Harbour. I mention these cases for the following reason. In the Grayson case it went to civil court and eventually the High court. Vern had the services of a QC and a room full of legal experts were called by both the defence and MA's legal team to give opinion on the legality of the bike. I still have reams of paperwork covering the case and in the end it still came down to opinion, not written fact.
This is pretty much what I'm saying... If the guy that wrote the rules doesn't know if his bike will pass scrutiny, then there must be a problem.
If an eligibility issue can go to the High Court, and still not be resolved in a definitive, factual way, then there must be a problem.
The rules have served the sport well - as I've said several times previously, the intent of the VMX rules is sound and well supported. But as time passes, competitor expectations and knowledge of the original intent will inevitably change. Re-writing the rules to match those altered expectations and knowledge is not a slight on the original author(s); it's just a part of the evoloution of our sport.
I won't pretend to know the ins-and-outs of the Grayson thing, beyond what I read in the published media ~10 years back, but it seems bizarre that anyone would take it to the High Court... Fair enough that Grayson has an expensive bike that he wants to race, but who is prepared to dig their heels in that deeply to prevent someone racing over a technicality?!?
-
Nathans on the money.
i think this is what Bahnsy's intention was all along, get it sorted so this sort of shit does not happen on race day (and fork it up for us all in the process) let alone the high court for forks sake.
-
Exactly Nathan, you hit it on the head. And yes Hoony, what Bahnsy had started the post with, wasn't his own personal thoughts but the rules of the evo class. He asked how YOU/SOMEONE/ANYONE would "Interperate the rules". Not if you liked/hated them or even if you thought they were right or wrong. And it is glaringly obvious with all the different thoughts posted in here on the evo rules that they need looking at.
With all the parts mentioned throughout this thread, there wasn't a fully agreed upon ruling weather they were legal or not. So if this is the train of thought in here what happens from one race meeting to another with different scrutinizer's'?? Is you bike legal at one race meeting but at another it isn't??
Do other riders protest because they believe their "Interpretation of the rules" is correct??
This question should've never needed to be asked, "EVOLUTION/OEM-What is YOUR interpretation?"
Because there shouldnt be any need to ask it. The rules should be written in black and white, not shades of gray. If you read my second posting in this thread, am I close to being correct or not?? You be the judge, but remember I don't race over there, I dint know what has been said or what is common practice at your meetings so when I read this thread at the start and posted what I did, I was and still am an outsider and don't know your rules. My interpretation of OEM is 'Original Equipment Manufacturer', so I take that as being not allowed to mix and match bikes. Tell me if I'm right or wrong??
If half of you or even one of you say I'm wrong then are the rules badly written or am I just a dumb ass??
But after 7 pages of discussing the subject people are still disagreeing. Why is that??
-
Can we move on from this. Our sport is now in its 20th year and we've got along pretty well without having to legislate against stupidity. Let's just carry on and deal with the percieved ugliness if and when it ever arises. Now, what about that crazy Clarence forking a duck eh??
-
Can we move on from this. Our sport is now in its 20th year and we've got along pretty well without having to legislate against stupidity. Let's just carry on and deal with the percieved ugliness if and when it ever arises.
You mean like shit going to court? Or the other issues that are still unresolved?
I can see where you're coming from: Let's not get too serious and it'll all be fine.
But it isn't all fine. We've got outstanding issues from ten years ago (and maybe longer?).
What would have happened if your pre-70 bike had been knocked back at Coffs? You'd have cracked the shits, just like I would have if my bike had been knocked back...
But now the boundary has been pushed that tiny little bit further - and it will continue to get pushed further and further until it steps over someone's line in the sand, and then we'll almost inevitably end up with a big stinking pile of pooh to deal with....
The world is a changed place compared to 1988, whether we like it or not. As I said earlier, everyone benefits from well written rules.
-
I don't follow all this really... But common sense tells me that a machine of yours in any class , age , grouping for any club , interclub, state, national ,international ,universal meeting you have entered or going to enter, makes "you think it might fail the eligibility". Why enter it and knowingly cheat Yourself!!!!!!!. Try redoing the machine and making yourself happy it easily complies, !!!!!! I found it works a treat. Cheers Tim
-
I probably would have cracked the shits Nathan but eventually would have realised that I hadn't done my homework and found documented proof that Boyd and Stellings alloy swingarms were manufactured prior to 1970 (as I since have). The bottom line in all of this is that it's up to the owner to ensure that his bike is legal by offering up written or documented proof that all of the components that make up your bike are legal. There is no need to fill a hefty volume with minute detail covering what is essentially an amateur, fun hobby. Who is going to compile this hefty tome and who is going to pay for it? You may already realise that our section in the rule book is vastly bigger than most of the other diciplines including the much more complicated classic road racing.
I included the Grayson and Veradi incidents to show that all of the written material the sport could dig up couldn't pin the alleged illegalities on the bikes down and it was in the end down to the judge (scrutineer). Don't make the mistake of using those cases as examples of needing to tighten the rules. Both of those cases were one offs (for different reasons) and no similar situations have arisen since. Think of the paper saved because we didn't overreact back then to tighten the rulebook.
-
I'm not suggesting tightening the rules: I'm suggesting tightening the wording of the rules.
Very different things.
Further, tightly worded rules are by nature, concise rather than rambling.
For example, if we don't want V-force reed blocks, then why not just say so?
"V-Force reed blocks are not permitted" saves a lot of guff and a lot of confusion...
-
This is the bike Firko done the story on, bloody shame not to have to seen it crackin around on the track.
Probably in moth balls now.
(http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m156/609759/347890.jpg)
-
Got to be the sweetest sounding bike :)
DT
-
Based on my memory of Firko's article:
It's got a twin down-tube frame when it 'should' have only one.
Apparently the owner has a letter from Eric Cheney saying that he made such frames before 1965, but that isn't/wasn't good enough.
Like I said before, it seems weird that anyone would be so desperate to keep a bike off the track over such a trivial detail. Maybe if it was a twin cam head or something similarly significant, but I fail to see what real performace improvement or visual difference there is...
-
The 'Grayson bike' is beautiful; I'd love to watch/listen to that beastie tear up a track!
Any photos of the other supposed imposter, the Veradi machine?
-
This is a straight reprint from a part of the article I did on Verns Cheney for Dirt Action back in 1998. The end result after the tribunal and ensuing court cas was that the evidence from Eric Cheney was deemed to be unreliable and since no solid printed proof could be offered, the bike was declared illegal for pre 65 but legal for pre 70. With pre 68 being the accepted cut off these days, it would now be eligible and still very competitive. Verns bike was one of the first truly bling bikes to appear in our sport and it truly raised the bar on build quality and presentation. Vern and the Cheney have been invited to join the Klub Kevlar display at CD5. I sincerely hope he and the bike decide to come.
THE SINGLE DOWNTUBE CONTROVERSY by Mark Firkin
At the 1996 Australian Classic Motocross ChampionshipsVern Grayson presented his Cheney Triumph for scrutineering. Eligibility scrutineers John O'Neil and Stuart Young ruled the bike ineligible to compete in the pre '65 class. It appears that their decision was based on their belief that the single downtube Cheney wasn't first produced until after the 1965 cutoff date. When Grayson pointed out to them that he had minutes from the the Pre 65 Club in England stating that the single downtube Cheney was in Great Britain, he was told, "This is Australia, not England". It was also bought to the eligibilitiy scrutineers attention that the machine had passed scrutineering the previous year at Tanunda and not one protest had been recieved. In fact, eligibility scrutineer John O'Neilhad finished third in the same class.
After a heated discussion which also involved MA steward Diane Trueman and Clerk of the Course David Murray, it was decided to let Grayson compete in the pre 65 class on the condition that if anybody protested he would be excluded and that any placings would be withheld until proof of eligibility was furnished.
Grayson raced in the first moto on Saturday morning and, after a poor startfinished third. The Cheney arrived back at the track on Sunday morning to find that the plot had thickened overnight.
It appears that a meeting had been held on Saturday night and the decision had been made to once again exclude the Cheney from competition. When the steward was approached on and asked to uphold her decision from the previous day, she refused and said the decision from the Saturday night meeting would stand. More heated words followed and Grayson was told that the rules of the Pre '65 Club in England, and Eric Cheney's own affirmations, were not considered proof of eligibility and that a twin downtube frame was needed to be eligible.
And that has been the Motorcycling Australia stance since that day. For two years a huge political football has been kicked back and forth between Melbourne and Brisbane and not a lot has been achieved. Let's look at some of the major points of the case.
The MA stance on the case against Graysons Cheney seems to have been based on its belief that the frame is of post 1964 design. In a letter to MA dated 19/04/96, Eric Cheney states: " I confirm we made single downtube frames similar to the Victor frame late 64/65 using ex factory 420 Bush engine B40 bored out to 420".
The above statement was repeated in a letter to the MA Historic Commission dated 24/04/97. In that letter Cheney lists the differences between his period frames and his currentlyproduced replicas. Cheney writes, "The main difference to the nut and bolt replicas are safety features of which I maintain priority over eligibility . IE: Folding footpegs,(correct 45% folding), kill button,side pull twist grip, Beaded edge on mudguards,cables tucked away,exhaust system out of the way (no leg burners), suspension that works, at least 4" of foam in the seats needed with only 4" of rear wheel travel,rear chain guard guides,keep fingers out in event of a tumble".
In a third undated letter to MA Cheney writes, "I do notclain my chassis are nut and bolt replicas of the past but are similar to what I manufactured in the pre 65 period. And I am certainly not repeating the failures that BSA and Triumph had in that period".
So, the whole argument seems to be over just how different (or similar) the replica frame is to its pre 65 counterpart. The Oxford dictionary defines the word 'similar' thus ;a.Having resemblence (to),of the same kind as each other or as something else;(Geom) identical in shape. If we are to take Eric Cheney's word literally there would be no argument. The word of a manufacturer must be taken as fact. He has repeatedly stated that he did manufacture such a frame in 1964.
It's obvious he's made some changes to the original pre 65 single downtube frame but are these changes important enough to cause such a kerfuffle? The lower shock absorber mount on the swingarm is an obvious modern modification. Although the mount is a couple of inches further forward than its pre 65 relative, Grayson has, on many occasions, stated that if they were the only bone of contention he would certainly obtain another swingarm with the mount in the original position.
A point that seems to have need overlooked in this whole debate is the question of just what is the Cheney Victor Replica a replica of ? One school of thought is that the Cheney is supposed to be an exact copy of a BSA Victor frame as the Mead Victor replica frame is claimed to be.
The frame is definitely not a pure replica of the BSA design, and I don't think Eric Cheney ever claimed it to be. What he has done is make a frame, improving on the supposed inadequacies of the BSA design, as the Rickman Brothers had done with their Metisse frames. Where the Cheney conceptdiffers is from the Rickman's is that where the Metisse design remained static once it was developed, the Cheney was in a continual state of change. It appears that the current Cheney is an "averaging out" of the process.
If that is the case, the scrutineers were wrong to disallow Graysons Cheney from competing in the Pre 65 class. It also appears that the criteria for banning the bike was flawed. The 1996 MA rule book states under rule 16:11:2 CHASSIS:A)1)
Framaes can be modified as long as the suspensiojn criteria remains the same, Aftermarket frames(Rickman, Cheney,Champion etc) areallowed as provided that they meet the year cut off dates for the class in which the machine is to compete.That's it!
If Eric Cheney, as the manufacturer, has made some changes to the frame from his original 1964 single downtube design, these changes would need to have been covered by section 1 of rule 16:11:2. Surely the manufacturer has as much right to modify a frame as ant bush engineer as long as the original concept and suspension criteria remain. Section 2 says it all. The Cheney frame is even specifically mentioned. The scrutineers at Barrabool were using a draft edition of the comprehensive eligibility criteria that appears in the current MA Handbook. It appears that they were in error to use this this guide as it was not in general circulation at the time. The MA Handbook should have been their only reference.
Controversy has surrounded the single downtube Cheney frame since the beginning of Classic Motocross in the early 80's in the UK. The Pre '65 Motocross Club in England on March 19 1995, passed a vote 47-9 to allow the single downtube Cheney frame in pre 65 racing throughout the UK. The American Historic Racing Motorcycle Association, the governing body of Classic Motocross in the USA allows the Cheney frame without question. An interesting point worth noting is that the AHRMA is led by former BSA rider Jeff Smith-the same Jeff Smith who won those World Motocross Championships back in 64/65-and Dick Mann, another great former BSA factory rider, two blokes who should know.
Vern Grayson opted not to travel to Western Australia for the '97 Nats but returned to Victoria this year in an attempt to race in the pre 65 class at Ravenswood's Australian Classic Titles. Once again, he was refused. Before this item comes out Grayson will return to Melbourne to face a tribunal that will finally decide either way, the fate of the bike. Let's hope sanity prevails and the Cheney is finally allowed to race where it belongs. The pre 65 class could do withh more machinery of this quality.
-
Maybe it's me but I can't see anything 'wrong' with that bike.I reckon a note from his mum would have held more sway in court........
Ha the AMA claiming rule, a fantastic article in the latest edition of pommy mag 'Classic Racer' with all the lowdown on the one and only time this rule had been enforced and a privateer walked away with a genuine hand built factory bike choc-a block full of all the unobtianium goodies.
-
Modified in the interest of the forum.
-
The corrupt scumbags that initiated the Grayson saga are guilty of one of the most disgraceful acts I've seen in my life.
I was there and you had to see the snivelling pricks trying to justify their decision to ban Verns Cheney Triumph. It still would have been unacceptable even if Verns bike was as illegal as they reckon. Verns Cheney would have been allowed to race anywhere in the world except at Barrabool that day because three blokes had it in for Vern and decided to carry on with it. One of the blokes was shown working on a bike in the Coffs Nats report in VMX and I nearly threw up when I saw his photo. Many people are still shitty about Vern treatment and it still comes up in conversation anongst old school blokes 10 years later. Vern still has the bike and it's still in pristine, ready to race condition. I hope he can come to CD5 but I doubt he'll make it. Old wounds last a long time.
-
Can those scumbags be named. I mean a legitimate protest is one thing , but this is a conspiracy and should be exposed and shamed.
-
nice lookin bike...just out of curiosity how much would verns bike be worth today.....
-
Hmmm, pls tread carefully people...
On the basis of what's been written with regard to the 'Grayson bike', I think all fair minded people would feel a great in-justice has been done.
I'm not doubting the accuracy of Firkos article; but naming people on a forum such as this could lead to legal issues if those 'outed' take offence.
It does sound like a conspiracy and it does stink.
I'm not defending the actions of those involved but perhaps the Personal Message links are a wiser way to get the word around if that's how you feel.
-
Woh Walter! Wombat is 100% right. We can't go throwing names around like that or next thing you know I'm being sued. In a nutshell Peter Lawson had no direct involvement in the Grayson saga. If you read the article you'll see that the only people mentioned are those whose involvement cannot be questioned. We can all throw accusations and insinuations at peoples involvement privately but to put anything in the public domain like this forum you'd better be sure your information is bulletproof.
Please folks, comment all you like but please leave names and unsubstantiated accusations out of it.
Andrew....The ironic thing is that there are a number of Cheney Triumphs around these days and to build one you'd get little change from $10-$12k.
-
That deffinatly was Clarence doing that duck. I had to attach a couple of jumper leads to his aggots to get them apart......
-
It was not Clarence doing the duck ( unless you are scizzo) That deffinatly was Clarence doing that duck. I had to attach a couple of jumper leads to his aggots to get them apart......
[/quote]
-
does vern grayson still get out and race on any bike
-
Paul...Until recently Vern had been riding vintage speedway on an old JAP and vintage flat track and long track on a trick BSA 650. Up until 2006 he and his wife Averil were heavily involved in the Brisbane Motorcycle Club.He's had a crook back for a few months and hasn't been racing much and is now heavily into flying.
-
im getting to like the pre 65/70 bikes more and more every time i see them . there in a class off ther own , i think in my old age which is now that ill be looking into it further /next project i recon
-
I have just bought a cheap IT250D to race Dirt Track with ACTMCC.
The class that they have run for 'old bikes' in the past is Evo.
I was advised that the IT is a bit soft and may need a tune up to be competitive.
The carby needs a rebuild but I have a Lectron Powerjet not being used that I could fit.
The Lectron Powerjet was available in 1980.
So can I use it?
What is the cutoff year for Evo?
-
Use it, no-one will give a shit unlessyou win the Nationals.
-
you would probably get smoked on an IT250D in the evo class but i think it might go ok in the pre78 class...isnt the D model yammy a 77 model....
-
I noticed the Lectrons on the TDR do you find them an either or proposition either mid range or top end?Due to the lack of an air correction circuit.Yeah I know unaffected by changes in RAD etc etc....The only carb rule applies to pre 75 that states 'No Flatslides' after then it's open slather.I think Mark knows how to get a 2 stroke Yamaha going ;) ;)
-
Use it, no-one will give a shit unless you win the Nationals.
But I want to win the Nationals! :)
...isnt the D model yammy a 77 model....
Yes.
do you find them an either or proposition either mid range or top end?
top end
So it looks like they should be ok for Evo which is what ACTMCC runs.
For Pre78 I suppose I could just block off the powerjet circuit.
-
I have just bought a cheap IT250D to race Dirt Track with ACTMCC.
The class that they have run for 'old bikes' in the past is Evo.
I was advised that the IT is a bit soft and may need a tune up to be competitive.
The carby needs a rebuild but I have a Lectron Powerjet not being used that I could fit.
The Lectron Powerjet was available in 1980.
So can I use it?
What is the cutoff year for Evo?
I raced Dirt Track with ACTMCC yesterday. Dennis was head scrutineer.
His opinion was that OEM meant that I could not use the Lectron in Evo.
The rule says '18.7.12.1 Bikes will be OEM.'.
This weekend was the VMX Nationals. Did anyone get pinged with the OEM rule?
Was there any further clarification as to what 'Bike will be OEM' means?
-
Prior to coming to vmx this year I had 3 years experience of New Era Road Racing bike eligibility.
I have just reread all the postings in this thread.
I believe that rule 18.7.12.1 'Bike will be OEM' is not enforcable whatever it means.
The reason is because it is so open to interpretation.
The question for next year is what was the intention of the rule and what will the 2009 GCRs say?