OzVMX Forum
Clubroom => Bike Talk => Topic started by: enzo906 on August 14, 2013, 09:13:10 am
-
Hi Guys
can anyone help me or point me in the right dierection, I tried searching but not sure of the different answers I have found, and different things people have told me
Pre 75 - is an xl350 76 eligible for MX? in pre 75
Evo - How can a new maico 81 (2012 model) be eligible but a cr500 air cooled motor in a converted twin shock frame (cr 480 RC modified frame with fox shocks) with a twin leading shoe brake not be eligible?
How does the YZ series fit in to evo if they never had twin shocks? can you race a 465G in Evo? what is the cut off for the YZ's
Finally pre78 - YZ D is the cut off correct? as they were 77 models and is methanol allowed in pre 78 MX because it was in 78 when I raced my 125D on Methanol (still have the carby with the jets ready to go in storage for 36 years!)
Any help appreciated and sorry if this is a question that is overly repeated but internet savvy I am not. I still can't work how to put a picture in a question.
-
The XL350K1 model is acceptable in pre-75.
YZ fits into Evo as it was a monoshock produced in the day, but not with a linkage system.
Methanol is ok.
-
Pre 75 - is an xl350 76 eligible for MX? in pre 75
The '76 XL350 is not legal for pre 75 because of its centre inlet port. Fit an earlier side port head and I'm sure you'll then be legal.
Evo - How can a new maico 81 (2012 model) be eligible but a cr500 air cooled motor in a converted twin shock frame (cr 480 RC modified frame with fox shocks) with a twin leading shoe brake not be eligible?
Easy...the Maico is an exact replica of the 1981 model but the Honda you propose didn't exist in the day, and don't bring the works open class twin shock Hondas of the day into it, they were a totally different bike.
How does the YZ series fit in to evo if they never had twin shocks? can you race a 465G in Evo? what is the cut off for the YZ's
The Evo rules stipulate "no linkage" not "twin shocks". The YZ465G has no linkage so its legal. The H is the last Evo legal Yamaha.
Finally pre78 - YZ D is the cut off correct? as they were 77 models and is methanol allowed in pre 78 MX because it was in 78 when I raced my 125D on Methanol (still have the carby with the jets ready to go in storage for 36 years!)
Methanol and the YZ-D are legal so enjoy yourself ;).
-
There is no age restriction on the Evo class, so there is no need for any sort of "carry over" rule.
I could take a 2013 KTM300EXC, mill the water jackets off, and fit some CNC-billet, hydraulicslly operated TLS drum brakes and it would be 100% legal for MA's Evo class, even at National Title level.
It would be an abomination that's entirely against the spirit of the rules, but it would be entirely legal.
-
could take a 2013 KTM300EXC, mill the water jackets off, and fit some CNC-billet, hydraulicslly operated TLS drum brakes and it would be 100% legal for MA's Evo class, even at National Title level
And no scrutineer would ever pass it.
-
My understanding of Evo is any parts used on the bike must have come from another Evo type bike. That's why I am using a '79 KDX400 (itself an Evo bike) engine in a KX250A5 Evo bike.
-
Vince, Xl350 centreport frames different too,sorta slimline around seatnose area,i do have a spare sideport frame if you want to go there??,(good luck witha sideport head hunt though ;D) , :P
-
could take a 2013 KTM300EXC, mill the water jackets off, and fit some CNC-billet, hydraulicslly operated TLS drum brakes and it would be 100% legal for MA's Evo class, even at National Title level
And no scrutineer would ever pass it.
Based on the rule book, every scrutineer would have to pass it. The only arguments against would be weaker than "it's the vibe of the thing".
Same goes for the "CR480RZ"s, if you hold your tounge the right way.
Even the (rightly) despised twin shock RM500 (etc) conversions can be made Evo legal with a minor variation on the entry form.
It's a gaping hole in the rules, that hasn't yet been exploited because we are happy to adhere to the intent of the rule.
-
Is anyone out there brave enough to argue this point with Nathan? I'm too old to let myself get trapped into a philosophical discussion that'll go on forever and I need to get out the shed anyway. :)
-
could take a 2013 KTM300EXC, mill the water jackets off, and fit some CNC-billet, hydraulicslly operated TLS drum brakes and it would be 100% legal for MA's Evo class, even at National Title level
And no scrutineer would ever pass it.
Based on the rule book, every scrutineer would have to pass it. The only arguments against would be weaker than "it's the vibe of the thing".
Same goes for the "CR480RZ"s, if you hold your tounge the right way.
Even the (rightly) despised twin shock RM500 (etc) conversions can be made Evo legal with a minor variation on the entry form.
It's a gaping hole in the rules, that hasn't yet been exploited because we are happy to adhere to the intent of the rule.
Thats all bullshit, it has to be period correct and none of the bikes you mentioned are.
Put your money where your mouth is and turn up to a title event with one and see how far you get!
-
How does the YZ series fit in to evo if they never had twin shocks? can you race a 465G in Evo? what is the cut off for the YZ's
The Evo rules stipulate "no linkage" not "twin shocks". The YZ465G has no linkage so its legal. The H is the last Evo legal Yamaha.
Just a small addition here Mark and one I'm sure you're aware of. The 1981 YZ125H is (the first yamaha production MX'r) watercooled and therefore not Evo eligible whereas the YZ250H and YZ465H were still aircooled and therefore are evo eligible.
My understanding of Evo is any parts used on the bike must have come from another Evo type bike. That's why I am using a '79 KDX400 (itself an Evo bike) engine in a KX250A5 Evo bike.
Wow .. I'm building exactly the same bike. KX250 A5 Frame with 1979 KDX400 Motor 8) Have been inspired by what Rusty (Holeshot Buddy) has and think it will be a sweet handling Evo open bike.
-
Just a small addition here Mark and one I'm sure you're aware of. The 1981 YZ125H is (the first yamaha production MX'r) watercooled and therefore not Evo eligible whereas the YZ250H and YZ465H were still aircooled and therefore are evo eligible.
Correctomundo Simo.....I had a mental picture of the 465H in my head, totally forgetting that the 125H had a radiator ;D. 125's aren't high on my list so I don't often think of them.
-
Thats all bullshit, it has to be period correct and none of the bikes you mentioned are.
Put your money where your mouth is and turn up to a title event with one and see how far you get!
What's the "period" for Evo, then?
To repeat the point for the 10,000th time: Evo is not defined by age, it is defined by technology. This means that a 2013 bike that meets the criteria is legal.
I'm not going to spend thousands of dollars building a bike that I don't want to own. ::)
You pay for it, and I'll be more than happy to enter it at any event you like.
-
This is not about philosophy, it's about what is written in the MA rule book.
-
Nathan an Evo bike has to consist of parts from an Evo legal bike, cr500 and rm500 motors are not legal because the bikes they came from are not Evo legal bikes. Simple isn't it?
Just like YZ465 forks are legal on any bike in the Evo class but CR480 forks are not..
-
I would love to own a CR480 engined 1980 CR250 Twinshock like the Farleigh Castle bikes but I'd never build one because I know it would be protested straight up.
-
Nathan an Evo bike has to consist of parts from an Evo legal bike, cr500 and rm500 motors are not legal because the bikes they came from are not Evo legal bikes. Simple isn't it?
Just like YZ465 forks are legal on any bike in the Evo class but CR480 forks are not..
Yep. But building a special, and entering it as a special eliminates all that.
-
Yep. But building a special, and entering it as a special eliminates all that.
??? ........I'll bite just this one time.....I think you'd better explain this for us please Nathan, and please don't spare the details ;).
-
Nathan ..... Evo in clause 18.5.6.1 - 18.5.6.2 and 18.5.6.3 shoot you down in flames big time.
Have another read .... it's simple and easy to follow.
-
Let's say that I build my KTM-based abomination bike, as described above. If I call it a 1984 bike, I'm lying and it would be fair to accuse me of converting later model parts.
But if I tell the truth (that its a 2013 model), then the problem of "converting later parts" disappears, as does any reference to "period" (it's period is now).
The Evo regs do not specify any dates, so there's no problem in admitting it is a 2013 model.
By calling it a special ("Sex Max" rather than "KTM"), you can side-step all the stuff about "OEM" and "remain externally unchanged" in the rules. (Sorry Stew, you missed!)
That's the guts of it, and it applies equally to CR480RZs and twin shock RM500s.
Less important stuff includes:
"This is an OEM bike, available to anyone who is happy to pay the $29,990 retail price";
Evo come AFTER Pre-90 in 18.2.2 suggests that the class is intended to permit newer bikes than pre-90.
To be perfectly clear: I don't want to do this. It's against the intent of the class. I'm pointing out that the rules allow it - along with the questionable CR480RZs and the awful twin shock RM500s.
Shoot the messenger all you want, but the real answer is to fix the rules.
-
Wouldn't it be the case that no part from the hyperthetical KTM bike is from an Evo bike therefore none of it is compliant? Otherwise why is the horizontal lug 43mm fork off an L model Yamaha problem on an Evo bike? I know the rules stipulate no cutoff date and somebody could race a 1999 DT175 (or whatever year had the last drum brake).
I like reading your arguments Nathan.
Cheers, Grahame
-
Wouldn't it be the case that no part from the hyperthetical KTM bike is from an Evo bike therefore none of it is compliant? Otherwise why is the horizontal lug 43mm fork off an L model Yamaha problem on an Evo bike? I know the rules stipulate no cutoff date and somebody could race a 1999 DT175 (or whatever year had the last drum brake).
I like reading your arguments Nathan.
Cheers, Grahame
The hypothetical bike is NOT a KTM - it's a SexMax, and the SexMax was built in my shed to be an Evo bike. Yeah, I've used some KTM parts in the build, but it is still a SexMax and not a KTM. Just like a Husaberg TE250 isn't a KTM, or a Penda isn't a Honda (or a KTM), etc.
The Yamaha front brake thing is part of my thinking - although its something that should be allowed (no performance gain, inclusive rather than exclusive, etc).
-
BUT, if you used any of the KTM, which is obviously not an Evo compliant bike, then neither is the Sexmax.
Cheers.
-
Wouldn't it be the case that no part from the hyperthetical KTM bike is from an Evo bike therefore none of it is compliant? Otherwise why is the horizontal lug 43mm fork off an L model Yamaha problem on an Evo bike? I know the rules stipulate no cutoff date and somebody could race a 1999 DT175 (or whatever year had the last drum brake).
I like reading your arguments Nathan.
Cheers, Grahame
The hypothetical bike is NOT a KTM - it's a SexMax, and the SexMax was built in my shed to be an Evo bike. Yeah, I've used some KTM parts in the build, but it is still a SexMax and not a KTM. Just like a Husaberg TE250 isn't a KTM, or a Penda isn't a Honda (or a KTM), etc.
The Yamaha front brake thing is part of my thinking - although its something that should be allowed (no performance gain, inclusive rather than exclusive, etc).
The more times i read it the more I kinda want one of these SexMax's!!! ;D I'm firming up just thinking about it!! :D
-
Is anyone out there brave enough to argue this point with Nathan?
Nathan the great debater once again takes on all comers in the ring.
He has beaten off many a competitor in previous engagements and now is trying to prove himself yet again in another mass debate.
Many have floundered in the past under Nathan’s persistent trademark sleeper hold and now Firko wavers under the constant pounding but he refuses to say die and in a last gasp he reaches to the ropes and GMC gets a tag.
The spectators look on in anticipation, half of them shout out “hit him over the head when the Referee isn’t looking”
The other half are asleep, so powerful is Nathans sleeper hold.
GMC resists the incredible urge and tries to fight fair, he puts the chair back down even though his manager is still distracting the Ref.
Will GMC be able to have any impact?
The round continues…
Do you have any proof that your Sexmax existed and that it was originally equipped with the parts that are on it?
Brochures, sales receipts etc
Here you go Nathan, you can keep this going by arguing the definition of ‘original equipment manufacture’
18.5.6.1 Bikes will be OEM (original equipment manufacture).
18.5.6.2 Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed.
18.5.6.3 All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured:
a) No linkage suspension,
b) No disk brakes,
c) air cooled motors.
-
Is anyone out there brave enough to argue this point with Nathan?
Nathan the great debater once again takes on all comers in the ring.
He has beaten off many a competitor in previous engagements and now is trying to prove himself yet again in another mass debate.
Many have floundered in the past under Nathan’s persistent trademark sleeper hold and now Firko wavers under the constant pounding but he refuses to say die and in a last gasp he reaches to the ropes and GMC gets a tag.
The spectators look on in anticipation, half of them shout out “hit him over the head when the Referee isn’t looking”
The other half are asleep, so powerful is Nathans sleeper hold.
GMC resists the incredible urge and tries to fight fair, he puts the chair back down even though his manager is still distracting the Ref.
Will GMC be able to have any impact?
The round continues…
Do you have any proof that your Sexmax existed and that it was originally equipped with the parts that are on it?
Brochures, sales receipts etc
Here you go Nathan, you can keep this going by arguing the definition of ‘original equipment manufacture’
18.5.6.1 Bikes will be OEM (original equipment manufacture).
18.5.6.2 Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed.
18.5.6.3 All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured:
a) No linkage suspension,
b) No disk brakes,
c) air cooled motors.
I gotta say that wording makes Nathan's argument look pretty credible, I think the thing folks seem to miss with Nathan is his arguments are rarely his own opinions, more just highlighting a particular point of view/interpretation exist!! When we form the VMX/VINDURO political party I'm sure Nathan's will be elected leader by way of no contest!! :D Love ya work
-
Is anyone out there brave enough to argue this point with Nathan?
Nathan the great debater once again takes on all comers in the ring.
He has beaten off many a competitor in previous engagements and now is trying to prove himself yet again in another mass debate.
Many have floundered in the past under Nathan’s persistent trademark sleeper hold and now Firko wavers under the constant pounding but he refuses to say die and in a last gasp he reaches to the ropes and GMC gets a tag.
The spectators look on in anticipation, half of them shout out “hit him over the head when the Referee isn’t looking”
The other half are asleep, so powerful is Nathans sleeper hold.
GMC resists the incredible urge and tries to fight fair, he puts the chair back down even though his manager is still distracting the Ref.
Will GMC be able to have any impact?
The round continues…
Do you have any proof that your Sexmax existed and that it was originally equipped with the parts that are on it?
Brochures, sales receipts etc
Here you go Nathan, you can keep this going by arguing the definition of ‘original equipment manufacture’
18.5.6.1 Bikes will be OEM (original equipment manufacture).
18.5.6.2 Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed.
18.5.6.3 All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured:
a) No linkage suspension,
b) No disk brakes,
c) air cooled motors.
If the SexMax is built, then it exists and that's all that matters. The Evo rules don't demand that it existed in 1980, 1984, 1989 or any other year: as written, the Evo class is NOT a historic class. It is a class that demands some superseded technical features, but nothing more.
And as I said, they are commercially available for a mere $29,990. 50% up front, and I'll build as many as you want. (Not that "commercially available" is in the CMX rules, but hey, I'm a nice guy and the SexMax is a great bike).
The OEM of the bike is SexMax - I've just used some KTM parts, in exactly the same way KTM just used some WP, Michelin and Keihin parts when they made their 300EXC (also consider Alrons, "Yamaha" HL500s, Metisses, CCMs, etc. [Or HSVs, the Proton Evo6s, etc]).
The lack of definition of OEM means that once I claim to be the manufacturer, all bets are off - the SexMax300 isn't in the KTM catalogue.
-
I kinda like it......... :P
(http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr37/Tony_T12/Sexmax.jpg) (http://s467.photobucket.com/user/Tony_T12/media/Sexmax.jpg.html)
-
BUT, if you used any of the KTM, which is obviously not an Evo compliant bike, then neither is the Sexmax.
Cheers.
The rule says "later parts", not "parts from a non-Evo bike".
-
I kinda like it......... :P
(http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr37/Tony_T12/Sexmax.jpg) (http://s467.photobucket.com/user/Tony_T12/media/Sexmax.jpg.html)
Fark! Some bastard's already built one!
Dunno why they put an extra shock on it, though?
:)
-
Fark! Some bastard's already built one!
Dunno why they put an extra shock on it, though?
:)
Oh yeah, PDS or whatever they call it isn't linkage, is it? ::)
-
Fark! Some bastard's already built one!
Dunno why they put an extra shock on it, though?
:)
Oh yeah, PDS or whatever they call it isn't linkage, is it? ::)
That's why the SexMax uses a KTM-EXC based frame. ;)
Good to have you back.
-
It won't pass scrutineering the Sexmax has got a side stand on it disqualified Nathan
-
Thats all bullshit, it has to be period correct and none of the bikes you mentioned are.
Put your money where your mouth is and turn up to a title event with one and see how far you get!
What's the "period" for Evo, then?
To repeat the point for the 10,000th time: Evo is not defined by age, it is defined by technology. This means that a 2013 bike that meets the criteria is legal.
I'm not going to spend thousands of dollars building a bike that I don't want to own. ::)
You pay for it, and I'll be more than happy to enter it at any event you like.
I think this covers it Nathan
18.5.6.1 Bikes will be OEM (original equipment
manufacture).
18.5.6.2 Modifications converting later equipment
to comply will not be allowed.
18.5.6.3 All components will be of the period the
machine was manufactured:
a) No linkage suspension,
b) No disk brakes,
c) air cooled motors.
-
If you start with a 2013 KTM all parts are OEM
This bike has a PDS rear setup which is NON LINKAGE
ALL componenents are of the PERIOD OF MANUFACTURE
Being a 2013 model ALL MODIFICATIONS are of the period or EARLIER construction
You could keep the hydraulic clutch, USD fork, fuel injection if it had it, etc.
Fit a Air cooled motor and drum brakes and argue it out. I think you would have a case as there is NO cutoff in dates for Evo
-
Ted, Nathan suggested machining the water jacket off a water cooled bike and then fitting drum brakes both of which render the bike outside EVO under rule 18.5.6.2 & 3.
I am not commenting further ::)
-
The way i read it is the "bike" must be OEM with no linkage, have drum brakes and air cooled. As soon as you are missing one of these requirements then you are out. You could call it any thing you want but if one of the components was from a bike that did not comply then I thing you would have to take it home.
Geoff
-
I wish Jeffy would come back....Nathan needs a real hard arse competitor, GMC is too soft....living in the hillbillies holiday home has turned him from a hard arse Kawasaki rider to a soft cock canned ham wobbler.
-
3 pages and counting Nathan I really think your 18 page record is safe as we no longer (surely) fall for your twisted sense of fun ::)
OK I commented further but this is it ;)
-
this has been done before and raced at national level
turning a late it yamaha into a twin shock raced in evo
nathan is always over the top but mods like turning a linkage bike into twin shock has been done and passed at national level
and if we had log books like road racing it would be an evo bike forever
jim
-
Thats all bullshit, it has to be period correct and none of the bikes you mentioned are.
Put your money where your mouth is and turn up to a title event with one and see how far you get!
What's the "period" for Evo, then?
To repeat the point for the 10,000th time: Evo is not defined by age, it is defined by technology. This means that a 2013 bike that meets the criteria is legal.
Well its is Dated
In the Time line of the the Rule Book of M.A the Mons Evo is placed arfter Per 78 and is place Befor Pre 85 ..
So it say that evo are bike made arfter 1978 and are bikes that dont fit the Pre 1985 rules ..
So it places Bikes Made arfter 1978 up to 1984 ...As EVO But thay Must Fit the EVO Rules
and a 2013 bike is made well arfter the Pre 1990 Rule so that any thing made arfter that dose Not Fit the Rules
it is in the rule Book You jushave to read it and under stand it
sume Blokes just dont want to under stand The Rule Book ...
And With Out Rule you Get Anarchy
-
Yawn....
-
Ted, Nathan suggested machining the water jacket off a water cooled bike and then fitting drum brakes both of which render the bike outside EVO under rule 18.5.6.2 & 3.
I am not commenting further ::)
You've missed the point where the bike is unashamedly a 2013 model.
-
Thats all bullshit, it has to be period correct and none of the bikes you mentioned are.
Put your money where your mouth is and turn up to a title event with one and see how far you get!
What's the "period" for Evo, then?
To repeat the point for the 10,000th time: Evo is not defined by age, it is defined by technology. This means that a 2013 bike that meets the criteria is legal.
Well its is Dated
In the Time line of the the Book of M.A the Mons Evo is placed arfter Per 78 and is place Befor Pre 85 ..
So it say that evo are bike made arfter 1978 that dont fit the Pre 85 rules ..
and a 2013 bike is made well arfter the Pre 90 Rule so that that it is in the rule Book just sume
Bloke just want to under stand The Rule Book ...
Depends on which bit of the CMX regs that you look at (the list of classes puts Evo as the newest, but it's regs are between Pre-78 and Pre-85), but it's a trivial point: there's still no age cut-off for Evo.
-
nathan is always over the top but mods like turning a linkage bike into twin shock has been done and passed at national level
When, where? The UK or Holland maybe Jim but not here.......more details matey?
-
Yawn....
Tim, stay awake mate, don't let the sleeper hold get you. ;D
I wish Jeffy would come back....Nathan needs a real hard arse competitor, GMC is too soft....living in the hillbillies holiday home has turned him from a hard arse Kawasaki rider to a soft cock canned ham wobbler.
Tag, your it.
Seriously though, how does any of this lawyer inspired dribble help enzo understand the rules?
Remember Enzo? He had the original simple question!!
-
Ted, Nathan suggested machining the water jacket off a water cooled bike and then fitting drum brakes both of which render the bike outside EVO under rule 18.5.6.2 & 3.
I am not commenting further ::)
I only said that to get a response from you, it worked....hehe
See ya at Buladelah. Hopefully with a running RM....now where is that spring?
-
Yawn....
Tim, stay awake mate, don't let the sleeper hold get you. ;D
I wish Jeffy would come back....Nathan needs a real hard arse competitor, GMC is too soft....living in the hillbillies holiday home has turned him from a hard arse Kawasaki rider to a soft cock canned ham wobbler.
Tag, your it.
Seriously though, how does any of this lawyer inspired dribble help enzo understand the rules?
Remember Enzo? He had the original simple question!!
Hey, I started with my simple statement that "there's no age restriction on Evo", and it's taken this long to convince you.
But it's all my fault, of course.
-
Hi,
Make sure you check the suspension travel on your Yamaha YZ D model
remember pre 78 rules allow up to 9 inch suspension travel
cheers
-
this has been done before and raced at national level
turning a late it yamaha into a twin shock raced in evo
nathan is always over the top but mods like turning a linkage bike into twin shock has been done and passed at national level
and if we had log books like road racing it would be an evo bike forever
jim
Has it? That is interesting. When did that happen?
I only ask because I have a 1983 KDX250 that has been converted to twin shock using a KLX swing arm and shockers. Awesome bike to ride and apart from those mods and the fact is has KX250A5 plastics, the bike is stock as a rock drum brake, air cooled 1983 KDX250.
Are you saying that I can legitimately race this bike at national level in the EVO class and not Pre 85?? Surely that is not correct?
-
Enter it as a 2013 Simo 250 and you're sweet. You'll have a fight, but you'll win.
-
What a load of crap. Even a hint of the word evo and you get on your 'change the evo rules' bullshit. Instead of ranting on here, YOU submit something. Stop pedalling it to all us common sense types on here that can read rules and know how they are to be interpreted. A bloke asks a few decent questions and gets bombarded with this absolute garbage. A modified 2013 ktm in evo is ridiculous at best.
FMD.
-
What a load of crap. Even a hint of the word evo and you get on your 'change the evo rules' bullshit. Instead of ranting on here, YOU submit something. Stop pedalling it to all us common sense types on here that can read rules and know how they are to be interpreted. A bloke asks a few decent questions and gets bombarded with this absolute garbage. A modified 2013 ktm in evo is ridiculous at best.
FMD.
I thought that Maico of yours looked too bloody new Brad .. it's a 2013 model isn't it?? Come on .. come clean ;D
And just for the record, I would never in my wildest dreams enter that KDX in any class other than Pre 85.
-
I can't believe that people still bother to argue the toss with Nathan over his wacky interpretations of the rulebook. We've all heard this bullshit before but some of you bother to come back for a second go......It's crazy, Nathan's never been wrong in the six or seven years I've been reading his posts so why would any of you mere mortals think you can prove him wrong this time around?
-
Yep. When you can't find fault in the argument, it must be time to take shots at Nathan.
:)
-
Yep. When you can't find fault in the argument, it must be time to take shots at Nathan.
Yep, That must be it. :'(
-
The problem with pretty much all rules (and legislation for that matter)... It's why we have lawyers.
The intent and spirit of the rules for Post Classic MX are quite clear, but of course anyone willing to try hard enough can always find a way around that. You only have to look at the history of bending the rules in things like Superbike racing to see that.
Nathan is quite right - the wording of the current rules does not prevent someone doing as he says. However, I think you might only last one race meeting before rule 12.2.3 could be invoked. Perhaps Chapter 18 could do with a year cutoff proviso that suggests all machines competing in Classic and Post Classic competition be manufactured before 1 January 1990...
-
I gotta hand it to Nathan , take away the common sense and emotion and as i read it he is correct :)
-
Thanks to those that have had an open-enough mind to not react defensively. We're never going to get anywhere if we keep pretending there's no issues with the rules. My hypothetical is extreme - nobody wants to see thoroughly modern bikes in Evo - but was intended to point out a problem that relates directly to the real-world dramas we have...
But hey, it's easier to bury our head in the sand, call Nathan names and let those problems continue.
-
The only way for Nathan's theory to be accepted by his peers, is for him to build the "tex-mex" and present for scrutineering (entered in the evo class) at a number of different VMX events across the country, then present his findings (getting past the guy in a flano shirt with a screw driver in his hand) preferably at CD? next year.
If you are accepted into the evo class at 97% of events (min 10 events) we will be forced to accept your theory, if Nathan can't reach those figures he will be forced to ride the "tex-mex" around the track at CD? in a mankini, with a dunce hat on while everyone pelts him with eggs.....
Sounds like a plan, over to you Nathan.
-
Classic Dirt is not the issue - they have a "Pre-85-only" rule so the bike is clearly ruled ineligible for CD.
Events that run to MA's eligibility standards do not have a bike-age rule for Evo.
There's no need to build the bloody thing. The whole process of determining eligibility can be done hypothetically.
But like I said earlier, if someone wants to pay for it, I'm happy to make it happen.
-
Classic Dirt is not the issue - they have a "Pre-85-only" rule so the bike is clearly ruled ineligible for CD.
Events that run to MA's eligibility standards do not have a bike-age rule for Evo.
There's no need to build the bloody thing. The whole process of determining eligibility can be done hypothetically.
But like I said earlier, if someone wants to pay for it, I'm happy to make it happen.
...or you allergic to eggs.
-
Irving Vincent Motorcycles get away with it why not nathan no different.
-
So again rather than stir shit up here as you do every time the word Evo is mentioned, do something about it. Just as you say you can use that bike, everybody including you knows it would go down like a fart in an elevator and would not run at any event.
-
Yawn....
Tim, stay awake mate, don't let the sleeper hold get you. ;D
I wish Jeffy would come back....Nathan needs a real hard arse competitor, GMC is too soft....living in the hillbillies holiday home has turned him from a hard arse Kawasaki rider to a soft cock canned ham wobbler.
Tag, your it.
Seriously though, how does any of this lawyer inspired dribble help enzo understand the rules?
Remember Enzo? He had the original simple question!!
Hey, I started with my simple statement that "there's no age restriction on Evo", and it's taken this long to convince you.
But it's all my fault, of course.
Enzo, seemingly a newbie to VMX rules is trying to get his head around what can & can’t be ridden in different classes, most likely there are other newbie’s looking on as well and you try to clarify things for them by bringing up some shonky loophole telling guys they can ride a 2013 model in VMX.
You know damn well that your Shonk-Max would never get to a VMX start gate, nor would any other home built hybrid that is being portrayed as a brand new model.
You want the imperfect rules to be re-written but that’s no reason to hijack a thread with such bullshit. Your very first comment on this thread was obviously looking for an argument.
Newcomers are probably walking backwards now not wanting to have anything to do with this weird bickering sport.
-
C'mon, it's not a weird bickering sport. Nathan's argument is just the stuff of sitting around a bar and arguing the toss because you can. the intent of the rules is quite clear and we all know what it is. if someone wants to do as nathan says they'd be turned away because the onus is on them to prove the bike not only meets the requirements of the rules but that it fits in the spirit of the rules.
The fact that Nathan can demonstrate a weakness in detail is neither here nor there. I think you can do that throughout the MoMS. I deal with legislation every day and have done for donkeys years and the MoMS is truly awful. But who the hell cares, it's a sport for Chrissakes.
We know what Evo is, and the MoMS has a nice simple explanation of how to interpret it. And in the real world, all is fine.
-
Thanks to those that have had an open-enough mind to not react defensively. We're never going to get anywhere if we keep pretending there's no issues with the rules. My hypothetical is extreme - nobody wants to see thoroughly modern bikes in Evo - but was intended to point out a problem that relates directly to the real-world dramas we have...
But hey, it's easier to bury our head in the sand, call Nathan names and let those problems continue.
My reaction to Nathans post has nothing to do with "open mindedness" nor do I have my head in the sand. I'm the first to admit that there are some wording anomalies in the rulebook that could do with a bit of a revamp. My problem is and always has been Nathans inability to see things from another perspective, whether it be politics, his criticisms of the rulebook or anything else he gets a bee in his bonnet about. It's his view that his perception is so much more astute than ours that gets under my skin. It's notable that the Evo class has survived and has thrived without any need to fix Nathans perceived faults .
-
Graeme hit the nail on the head....."in the real world".......not the "Nathan world".....all you guy's know better not to get involved with Nathan's "Christine Milne Green party" perception of things......just be thankfull he hasn't run for parliament yet.....Christ Firko, if you thought ol' Jo Bejelkie was a redneck, he was a pussy......"don't you worry about that".....lol... :)......"let me introduce you to our new PM....Nathan Senior".....then you'll be looking for a fork to stab yourself in the eyes.....lol.
-
Graeme hit the nail on the head....."in the real world".......not the "Nathan world".....all you guy's know better not to get involved with Nathan's "Christine Milne Green party" perception of things......just be thankfull he hasn't run for parliament yet.....Christ Firko, if you thought ol' Jo Bejelkie was a redneck, he was a pussy......"don't you worry about that".....lol... :)......"let me introduce you to our new PM....Nathan Senior".....then you'll be looking for a fork to stab yourself in the eyes.....lol.
Ironically, I often agree with Nathans posts but it's that dogged "I'm right but you're all too stupid to see it" attitude turns me from friend to foe after about three pages of rantings. In the real world Nathan's quite a nice bloke who's helped many of us including me with our projects by supplying parts from his mountainous stash. But in Cyber Space he morphs into a combination of Alan Jones (the shock jock one) and Brother Athenacious, my old Marist Brothers Pagewood high school principal (who up until recently was the most stubborn person I'd ever known) with his one sided insight into what's right for us.
Meanwhile Enzo....I hope your questions were answered satisfactorily mate ;).
-
Wait... Is being popular on the Internet supposed to be important?!
I've been watching the eligibility debates go over and over and over for 25 years now. While some issues are simply resolved, far too many fester, sometimes indefinitely. They are the gangrene of our sport.
Think about how much damage is done every time someone is knocked back at scrutiny, or protested - I've met people who still harbour grudges from 15 years ago, FFS.
I've lost track of the number of people I've met who clearly have enthusiasm for old dirt bikes, but when I say "why don't you come along to...", they point-blank refuse to because of some eligibility dispute that happened in 1997...
There ARE people who try it on - we don't want or need to bend over to them. But while the rules are unclear, it encourages uncertainty and division.
Everyone hates uncertainty - look at the buyer's strike that happens before every federal election, for one example.
So it seems very clear to me that clearer, more concise rules are hugely important for our sport - that our "it will be right" attitude to the rules is actually doing us a massive disservice, as theyre the source of 90% of the conflict we see (both on the forum and at events).
It would seem that the CMX commission would agree with me, as they've been slowly moving in that direction for the last few years.
But any time it gets brought up here, the automatic response is to refuse to talk about it: "The rules work, let's not talk about it"... Hell, Firko and Brad are nearly as happy to dig in when they are certain they're right - but when I do the same, suddenly the topic shifts to being all about Nathan's personality failings...
I can see a problem - everything I've seen, heard and experienced in the last 8 years of active participation strengthens my belief that it is a problem that is limiting the sport.
Should I meekly say nothing, and continue to watch the damage?
-
Nathan, have you an example of the Evo rules causing this sort of uncertainty? EVERYONE knows what an Evo bike is. If someone 'tries it on' and gets knocked back, who the hell cares if he harbours a grudge? Most of the cases of unhappiness I've seen are guys with 85/86 model bikes who are stopped from riding in Pre 85 or some similar situation. There the problem is just one of not knowing, or being unwilling to observe, the rules.
I think the problem is more likely people's attitudes than the shortcomings of the rules...
-
Hell, Firko and Brad are nearly as happy to dig in when they are certain they're right
But we don't waffle on for page after page after page. We usually make our point early and as succinctly as possible and then back away.
I've been involved in this sport since 1988 and yes, I've seen and been a part of some eligibility doozies over the years but to say that something that happened in 1997 is preventing someone from entering the sport on 2013 says more about those people that the condition our sport's in. In 25 years of involvement I can only recall a handful of scrutineering situations that could be called 'shitfights'. Of those, the Boagy CZ rear wheel incident has been hyped and misrepresented so much that the real story is lost in legend. The Vern Grayson Cheney case from 1997 did grow beyond a sensible conclusion but the make up of that situation was as much a clash of personalities as a rulebook interpretation. All of the other that I can think of such as Geoff Holmes CR125 at Cherabah, Brook Lawson's BSA at Conondale, Dave Alsops Maico XR200 at Barrabool and the few more I won't bother listing here were all adequately covered by the book as it sits. When you consider that the vast majority of the thousands of bikes that have been presented for scrutineering at National events over the last 25 years have passed with nary a problem it'd be pretty obvious that the MoMs is easily understood by the majority of racers. Sure, the MoMs definitely could do with a tidy up but to most who race classic dirt bikes in both dirt track and motocross there aren't the problems you seem to find Nathan. Rather than searching for loopholes that are usually covered by the common sense factor anyway, why not do like the majority of us do and build and race bikes to the rules as they are, it's pretty simple and only complicated by taking a pedantic view of them. If you think there are changes needed it's your prerogative to write amendments to the rules you see a problem with and submit them through your club secretary to the CMX Commission for consideration. While the rules do have loopholes that can be interpreted differently than they were intended, most racers use the common sense approach and just get on with it.
-
Thanks Guys
I now have a pretty good idea of how to go forward
If I want to ride a big bore Honda is out in EVO so get a pre 85
The little 125 D model I have can go pre78 and evo if I want to and I can go YZ250H or 465H, which is the best way to have an EVO and pre 85 Bike short of 15K for a Maico.
It all makes sense now and I can't remeber who it was but the comment on how period / technology of time, makes alot more sense than reading the rule books. No big bore production Honda was made before rising rate linkages and Yamaha Monoshock is not a linkage. The KTM does not have a linkage but the current technology of the KTM rear reproduces (without the levers etc) a rising rate type of suspension so KTM is not eligible even with fins welded onto a newer Generation design 2 stroke. and there is the Rub that engine design is not period nor is the Frame so swapping forks and drums for disc's is moot.
Thanks again guys I am now hunting for a yz465G/H G is nicer looking from memory it had those lovely stickers like the E model. Anyone selling one?
-
Oh
I forgot, sorry if I caused argy bargy with this topic but If I am going to look to increase the stable I wanted not to regret the purchase.
Thanks again
-
Maybe Nathan watches too many American lawyer type shows......
K
-
I've been watching the eligibility debates go over and over and over for 25 years now. While some issues are simply resolved, far too many fester, sometimes indefinitely. They are the gangrene of our sport.
Think about how much damage is done every time someone is knocked back at scrutiny, or protested - I've met people who still harbour grudges from 15 years ago, FFS.
I've lost track of the number of people I've met who clearly have enthusiasm for old dirt bikes, but when I say "why don't you come along to...", they point-blank refuse to because of some eligibility dispute that happened in 1997...
A couple of things Nathan. Firstly, like many, I respect your right to your opinion and I also respect the fact you do so quite vigourously. I would never "Nathan bash" you or "anyone bash" for that matter however I have a point to make regarding the above section of your last chapter.
Unfortunately I fell victim to my own stupidity last year when I was knocked back at the Nats for presenting a pre 75 TM250 that wasn't pre 75. I did not know that it was a 75 frame until such time as the scrutineers told me so. I should have known, iot's as simple as that.
What happened around that event is now long gone and I do not wish to relive it now except to say that, as shattering as that was to me at the time, I have moved on. I will enter the Nats this year (if they actually occur and I'm sure they will) but I will make damned sure the bikes I present are 110% eligible. In other words I've built my bridge and get over it.
You need to tell those people still holding grudges from 1997 to do the same. If they "clearly have enthusiasm" then it's not hard to find some building materials and build the damn bridge. Maybe the building materials could be in the form of a little more knowledge, some humbleness and an eligible bike :)
-
Oh
I forgot, sorry if I caused argy bargy with this topic but If I am going to look to increase the stable I wanted not to regret the purchase.
Thanks again
Wise man :)
-
Nathan, how about you go through the MOM's, pick out all the wrong wording/era's and or changes needed by us (VMX), and only applicable to us, re-write it, show us, we can debate/change it or what ever, then submit it through the right channels and we can all be happy little vegemites?...go on....nike it!!! :)
-
For one, this lawyer / legality thought process really gets up my nose. There is enough of that wrecking our lives in many ways. Just to start with it affects mx in the worst way.
As has been said the rules work in the real world and for the third time I will ask you Nathan that if it is such a problem for you, take it up with M.A. I would not hazard a guess as to how many times you have raised this issue on here. I feel this sort of thing does way more damage than some idiot trying to pass off a later model bike off at a meeting, then gets pissed off because he's told to put it back on the trailer. Probably the best part of all this is that you know and abide by the rules already. This playing the devils advocate is wearing thin and think it is detrimental as its here forever for all to see.
-
Thanks Guys
I now have a pretty good idea of how to go forward
If I want to ride a big bore Honda is out in EVO so get a pre 85
The little 125 D model I have can go pre78 and evo if I want to and I can go YZ250H or 465H, which is the best way to have an EVO and pre 85 Bike short of 15K for a Maico.
It all makes sense now and I can't remeber who it was but the comment on how period / technology of time, makes alot more sense than reading the rule books. No big bore production Honda was made before rising rate linkages and Yamaha Monoshock is not a linkage. The KTM does not have a linkage but the current technology of the KTM rear reproduces (without the levers etc) a rising rate type of suspension so KTM is not eligible even with fins welded onto a newer Generation design 2 stroke. and there is the Rub that engine design is not period nor is the Frame so swapping forks and drums for disc's is moot.
Thanks again guys I am now hunting for a yz465G/H G is nicer looking from memory it had those lovely stickers like the E model. Anyone selling one?
What's your price range?
-
Firko, I'm not just talking about the Big Shitfights. I'm talking about the small shitfights, the quibbles and the uncertainty that do the damage.
People like certainty. They like being able to build a bike and KNOW it is legal. To be able to go to an event and KNOW there won't be an eligibility problem.
Look at him many "is this legal?" threads we get - collectively, we do our best to give clear answers and eliminate uncertainty, but (even when I'm not involved...) there's regularly ambiguous and/or conflicting answers.
If newbies (and often established competitors) regularly need to depend on other people to interpret the rules from them, then there's no question that the rules should be clearer. All of the "fill in the blanks" stuff about the intent of various rules that you have stored in your head (and Dave T's and Shane's and everyone else's heads) should be in the rules. Not word-for-word, but the intent.
Clear and unambiguous.
Tell me what the bad points of clear, unambiguous rules are...
The phrase "just build your bike to be legal" is a cop-out that assumes the builder knows about all of the gaps in what's published. It also assumes that people are mainly motivated by wanting to make their bikes faster (ie: gain an advantage, possibly cheating). In reality, most times it's because people have the questionable part readily available, or it's something they think is cool.
Look at the "Yamaha brake lug in Evo" question: The strictest interpretation of the rules says that it's not OK to use the horizontal lug brake and matching fork leg. But people will want to use the later part because its far easier to get hold of, and usually much cheaper.
It provides no performance gain and looks virtually identical, so what does anyone gain by prohibiting it?
Similarly, there are a number of people who argue that the 450/480 powered CR250RZs are legal Evo bikes. I recall a comment on these forums along the lines of "I think it's legal, so f$&k 'em, I'm going to take it and they can protest me"... Again, an example of ambiguity being a negative - regardless of whether you agree that those mods are Evo legal or not, the ambiguity allowed hostility to brew.
Same goes for Suzuki and Honda TLS front brakes on Evo bikes, or the CR-RB swing arms, or...
This shit needs to be shaken out, not ignored again and again.
I don't even care what the decision is anymore, there just needs to be a clear one. (Look at how the RM-B swingarm agro evaporated once a decision was made known)
-
OK....If it's so important to you that the rulebook needs some drastic changes, rather than venting your spleen on here about it over and over....why don't you sit down at the computer and start rewriting the rules to a standard that you think will do them justice. I agree with you that there are some sections that need a touch up so seeing that it's so important to you, why not do it yourself? I sat down with a blank sheet of paper in 1988 and wrote the basic rules that are still the basis of what we use today. If you're as passionate as I was in 1988 it won't be as big a chore as it might at first seem. Unless somebody like you starts the ball rolling, nothing is ever going to change.
-
I've tried to get the ball rolling plenty of times, but when it comes to getting input on "what should the rules be?", I just get stonewalled.
-
18
"AN OVERVIEW
Classic Motocross and Dirt Track applies to events Pre
60 Class up to and including the Pre 78 Class.
Post Classic Motocross and Dirt Track applies to
Evolution, pre 85 and the pre 90 classes.
And is for motor bikes originally designed and built
up to and including 1989 models "
-
Noel, Your last sentence is not listed in the MoMS
" And is for motorbikes originally designed and built up to and including 1989 models"
I cannot find any reference to year of manufacture of EVO class. I stand to be corrected.
As silly as it sounds, the way it is worded Nathan would win his case hands down.
-
The Evo rules are the simplest of all. Play it straight and fair and it's no problem
-
The Evo rules are the simplest of all. Play it straight and fair and it's no problem
Have you read the thread, Col?
-
I should also add that I suppressed my instinct to say something when I saw short-comings in the organisation and promotion of the PCMXNs from months out.
I'm not claiming that speaking up would have made the difference, but I do feel guilty and embarrassed for saying nothing and letting it all turn to crap. Like all forms of guilt, it is a powerful motivator.
All that is required for failure to triumph, is for normal people to say nothing.
-
just a few points i have found about evo.it has no date for it
1977 bultaco astro pre 78 eligible NOT ELIGIBLE for EVO factory std rear disk brake
pre75/78 flattrack bikes NOT ELIGIBLE for EVO
now here is the answer
take the rear wheel from another bike fit it and you are EVO legal but NOT OME.
i have found this out the hard way as now our club races are evo open so cant use my OME pre78 rear wheel.
if there were the same as other club days pre75- pre85 i could use my disc brakes.
so now all my dirt track bikes will have drums all round but my slider will have disc rear as there is no evo slider class pre75 or pre90
just my 2 cents from a non mx view
jim
-
Let's say that I build my KTM-based abomination bike, as described above. If I call it a 1984 bike, I'm lying and it would be fair to accuse me of converting later model parts.
But if I tell the truth (that its a 2013 model), then the problem of "converting later parts" disappears, as does any reference to "period" (it's period is now).
The Evo regs do not specify any dates, so there's no problem in admitting it is a 2013 model.
By calling it a special ("Sex Max" rather than "KTM"), you can side-step all the stuff about "OEM" and "remain externally unchanged" in the rules. (Sorry Stew, you missed!)
That's the guts of it, and it applies equally to CR480RZs and twin shock RM500s.
Less important stuff includes:
"This is an OEM bike, available to anyone who is happy to pay the $29,990 retail price";
Evo come AFTER Pre-90 in 18.2.2 suggests that the class is intended to permit newer bikes than pre-90.
To be perfectly clear: I don't want to do this. It's against the intent of the class. I'm pointing out that the rules allow it - along with the questionable CR480RZs and the awful twin shock RM500s.
Shoot the messenger all you want, but the real answer is to fix the rules.
I have come into this late so someone else may have already said this, I haven't got time to read the lot. The rules do not need fixing. GCR 18.5.6.2. "Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed." End of argument. Also the Maicos sold by Maico Only in the UK have 83 Spider motors in them so they don't comply also. They would if the motor was 81 or 82 GS.
Also if anyone does want to buy a new Evo bike a Honda CT110 postie complies with the rules.
So please build a bike or bring one in from the UK I will be more than willing to protest it (and win).
-
Let's say that I build my KTM-based abomination bike, as described above. If I call it a 1984 bike, I'm lying and it would be fair to accuse me of converting later model parts.
But if I tell the truth (that its a 2013 model), then the problem of "converting later parts" disappears, as does any reference to "period" (it's period is now).
The Evo regs do not specify any dates, so there's no problem in admitting it is a 2013 model.
By calling it a special ("Sex Max" rather than "KTM"), you can side-step all the stuff about "OEM" and "remain externally unchanged" in the rules. (Sorry Stew, you missed!)
That's the guts of it, and it applies equally to CR480RZs and twin shock RM500s.
Less important stuff includes:
"This is an OEM bike, available to anyone who is happy to pay the $29,990 retail price";
Evo come AFTER Pre-90 in 18.2.2 suggests that the class is intended to permit newer bikes than pre-90.
To be perfectly clear: I don't want to do this. It's against the intent of the class. I'm pointing out that the rules allow it - along with the questionable CR480RZs and the awful twin shock RM500s.
Shoot the messenger all you want, but the real answer is to fix the rules.
I have come into this late so someone else may have already said this, I haven't got time to read the lot. The rules do not need fixing. GCR 18.5.6.2. "Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed." End of argument. Also the Maicos sold by Maico Only in the UK have 83 Spider motors in them so they don't comply also. They would if the motor was 81 or 82 GS.
Also if anyone does want to buy a new Evo bike a Honda CT110 postie complies with the rules.
So please build a bike or bring one in from the UK I will be more than willing to protest it (and win).
Yes we both know its been done before hey Kev.. Remember the 1980 CR250 with the 480 motor fitted that turned up to race at Echo Valley?
-
Let's say that I build my KTM-based abomination bike, as described above. If I call it a 1984 bike, I'm lying and it would be fair to accuse me of converting later model parts.
But if I tell the truth (that its a 2013 model), then the problem of "converting later parts" disappears, as does any reference to "period" (it's period is now).
The Evo regs do not specify any dates, so there's no problem in admitting it is a 2013 model.
By calling it a special ("Sex Max" rather than "KTM"), you can side-step all the stuff about "OEM" and "remain externally unchanged" in the rules. (Sorry Stew, you missed!)
That's the guts of it, and it applies equally to CR480RZs and twin shock RM500s.
Less important stuff includes:
"This is an OEM bike, available to anyone who is happy to pay the $29,990 retail price";
Evo come AFTER Pre-90 in 18.2.2 suggests that the class is intended to permit newer bikes than pre-90.
To be perfectly clear: I don't want to do this. It's against the intent of the class. I'm pointing out that the rules allow it - along with the questionable CR480RZs and the awful twin shock RM500s.
Shoot the messenger all you want, but the real answer is to fix the rules.
I have come into this late so someone else may have already said this, I haven't got time to read the lot. The rules do not need fixing. GCR 18.5.6.2. "Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed." End of argument. Also the Maicos sold by Maico Only in the UK have 83 Spider motors in them so they don't comply also. They would if the motor was 81 or 82 GS.
Also if anyone does want to buy a new Evo bike a Honda CT110 postie complies with the rules.
So please build a bike or bring one in from the UK I will be more than willing to protest it (and win).
Yes we both know its been done before hey Kev.. Remember the 1980 CR250 with the 480 motor fitted that turned up to race at Echo Valley?
The only chink it the statement is that CT110 is now......believe it or not.........DISCONTINUED! :'( yup even the posties won't be using them in a few years.
-
People are still missing the point about "later equipment". Using this statement assumes that the starting point is c1981.
-
Look at the "Yamaha brake lug in Evo" question: The strictest interpretation of the rules says that it's not OK to use the horizontal lug brake and matching fork leg. But people will want to use the later part because its far easier to get hold of, and usually much cheaper.
It provides no performance gain and looks virtually identical, so what does anyone gain by prohibiting them.
There is a difference between the '82 horizontal lug and the '81 45 degree lug on the 43mm Yamaha forks, besides coming from a water cooled, linkage'd bike and that is they where also fitted with compression damping adjustment on the bottom of the fork that the "H" model wasn't...performance gain right there.
Do I hear a cartridge emulator argument coming on....
-
Yes I know, John. I sent an email to Rick Doherty in the US the inventor of the Evo class. He responded very quickly and told me that a modified 480 was not an Evo bike. Modified bikes Hondas and Suzuki and even early on some Yamahas are legal in the Twin Shock series in the UK. I believe this class was invented by Bill Brown, it helped him sell a lot of Maicos. I have now scaned over the others posts I and now realise this is someone version of fun. Stir up some discussion and see how much response you can get.
Anyway please built your bike, but first make sure you are recognised as a bike manufacturer, design and build the bike from scratch. If you comply with this it could be recognised as eligible for Evo class. Also build it for the 500 class because no matter what you do it still won't be as good as the best 500 Motocrosser ever built, the mighty Maico 490.
I'm buying a postie bike next week for Evo 125 class, does anyone make an alloy swingarm and can I get Ohlins to fit.
Kevin
-
The only chink it the statement is that CT110 is now......believe it or not.........DISCONTINUED! :'( yup even the posties won't be using them in a few years.
[/quote]
There you go Nathan there is a chance for you to become a bike manufacturer. Design and build a replacement for the postie bike. You can build it to comply to Evo rules, or maybe you could import some 2013 490 Maicos for the posties. Also if anyone thinks a CT110 isn't an off road bike, they spend most of their time off road on the footpaths.
Are there any more comedy posts I can get involved in?
-
Are there any more comedy posts I can get involved in?
There are plenty Kev, just click on any of Nathan's posts...
-
I get that part of Nathan's argument. With respect to Evo there is no "later equipment". The wording in the MoMs maybe should say something about not using parts that originated from another era or class.
Grahame
-
The only chink it the statement is that CT110 is now......believe it or not.........DISCONTINUED! :'( yup even the posties won't be using them in a few years.
There you go Nathan there is a chance for you to become a bike manufacturer. Design and build a replacement for the postie bike. You can build it to comply to Evo rules, or maybe you could import some 2013 490 Maicos for the posties. Also if anyone thinks a CT110 isn't an off road bike, they spend most of their time off road on the footpaths.
Are there any more comedy posts I can get involved in?
[/quote]
Here's what the "real deal" looks like
(http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac93/gutuff/image_zpsb1439cac.jpg) (http://s889.photobucket.com/user/gutuff/media/image_zpsb1439cac.jpg.html)
(http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac93/gutuff/image_zps3150c98a.jpg) (http://s889.photobucket.com/user/gutuff/media/image_zps3150c98a.jpg.html)
(http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac93/gutuff/image_zpsecb9f263.jpg) (http://s889.photobucket.com/user/gutuff/media/image_zpsecb9f263.jpg.html)
-
Yes Grahame the wording is not perfect but most of us interpret the rules the way they were meant to be....
-
Anyway please built your bike, but first make sure you are recognised as a bike manufacturer, design and build the bike from scratch. If you comply with this it could be recognised as eligible for Evo class.
All that stuff about the "recognised manufacturer" is a figment of your imagination.
I've been talking about what the rules say, not what we think they say, or think they should say.
-
People are still missing the point about "later equipment". Using this statement assumes that the starting point is c1981.
What was the missing bit again ?
(http://i1260.photobucket.com/albums/ii576/KAB171/blogg2_zps042831ff.jpg) (http://s1260.photobucket.com/user/KAB171/media/blogg2_zps042831ff.jpg.html)
-
Not once have you said you are going to do anything about it. I think it's because you are getting so much milage on here. It's nothing more than trolling. For the fifth time on this thread I will say to do something about it. You say you have tried before on here and no one wants anything to do with it. That in itself says a lot for others mind set. Still, you have the issue, you do something about it.
I would also hate it if the rules were changed in such a fashion you had to run it past a freaking lawyer to understand it. Now that would not inspire any new comers.
-
I've been talking about what the rules say, not what we think they say, or think they should say.
We know what the rules say and we know what they should say, but we're not having any trouble understanding them. If it bothers you so much do something about getting it rewritten as Brad says, without ending with a 500 page rule book that is over complicated.
With 90+ Evo bikes entered at the Conondale classic the class is not suffering by rule book wording..
-
People are still missing the point about "later equipment". Using this statement assumes that the starting point is c1981.
What was the missing bit again ?
(http://i1260.photobucket.com/albums/ii576/KAB171/blogg2_zps042831ff.jpg) (http://s1260.photobucket.com/user/KAB171/media/blogg2_zps042831ff.jpg.html)
Absolutely perfect KB! :)
-
With 90+ Evo bikes entered at the Conondale classic the class is not suffering by rule book wording..
Intersting you should mention the Classic JO, The 2nd round on Sat Arvo, I was sitting on the grid waiting for an injured rider to be removed from the course and chatting to the people around me when I noticed the guy next to me on a YZ250G or H had 83 front end fitted with the horizontal lugged twin brake. As he was a younger guy and I though he might not know better I did mention to him that whilst it was no problem for me and for where he was today, if he showed up at the PC Nationals he would not be able to ride with those forks in the evo class. As you'd expect, he wasn't interested and just said "oh well, they can protest me" to which I responded, "no you don't understand, you probably won't get to ride it in the class as they will not allow it. No protesting if you aren't riding it"
Anyway, he was a bit faster than I was so I suspect those adjustable, late model, non class complaint forks were a real advantage and allowed him to get on the throttle faster than me ;D
Should have protested the whipper snapper ;D
-
Hey Guys.
At the risk of getting the thread back on track......
I've been riding the earlier classes, pre75 and recently pre78 and have now decided to pull my CR250RZ out of mothballs and take it for a run or 10. Its been a Lounge Queen for far too long.
It has 43mm Showa forks with TLS front brake. It also has the factory works replica type swingarm.
Question: Is this setup legal for Evolution racing?
Any sensible help will be appreciated.
Cheers,
Mark
-
Not once have you said you are going to do anything about it. I think it's because you are getting so much milage on here. It's nothing more than trolling. For the fifth time on this thread I will say to do something about it. You say you have tried before on here and no one wants anything to do with it. That in itself says a lot for others mind set. Still, you have the issue, you do something about it.
I would also hate it if the rules were changed in such a fashion you had to run it past a freaking lawyer to understand it. Now that would not inspire any new comers.
The thing I keep banging on about is making clear and concise - not 500 pages, and not requiring a law degree to understand. There's no point in rewriting them to make them less clear and/or more wordy.
What do you think [utl=http://forum.ozvmx.com/index.php?topic=30510.0]this[/url] is about?
The problem with rewriting rules is that there's two parts. You need a PERFECT understanding of the intent and detail of the current wording, and then be able to express them more clearly.
I reckon I can do the second bit, but it seems that nobody (not even Firko or Tanner) has the 100% complete understanding of the details.
-
TBM, you'll get both answers on the forks/front brake, but the concencus is that they're not OK.
That said, I've seen plenty of Evo Hondas turn up and race without issue using those parts.
Swingarm is also vague. If its a perfectly accurate replica of the works part, you're good.
If its an RB swingarm that's been tweaked, then the strict argument says it is a later part that's been converted (and therefore not OK).
Again, experience says that you wouldn't be Christopher Colombus if you ran it on an Evo bike.
-
Hey Guys.
At the risk of getting the thread back on track......
I've been riding the earlier classes, pre75 and recently pre78 and have now decided to pull my CR250RZ out of mothballs and take it for a run or 10. Its been a Lounge Queen for far too long.
It has 43mm Showa forks with TLS front brake. It also has the factory works replica type swingarm.
Question: Is this setup legal for Evolution racing?
Any sensible help will be appreciated.
Cheers,
Mark
Mark
From what I know and from the research I have done it would not be Evo Eligible. Recently I was looking to buy a very nice CR250RA that had the 83 model 43mm forks and twin leader fitted. When I asked around about eligibility I was told that it would not be Evo eligible. So I purchased a nice YZ250H for half the price knowing it is evo eligible.
Cheers
Craig
-
Nobody cares if your rig has a few "illegal" parts on it until you start winning. ;)
-
TBM going by the rule book you can run 43mm YZ250/465H forks and brake but not CR. having said that I've seen a few Showa 43mm front ends in Evo.
Depends how strict the scrutineers is..
-
Nobody cares if your rig has a few "illegal" parts on it until you start winning. ;)
That is probably the truth..
-
TBM going by the rule book you can run 43mm YZ250/465H forks and brake but not CR. having said that I've seen a few Showa 43mm front ends in Evo.
Depends how strict the scrutineers is..
I've seen them as well but that doesn't make it right. Our old mate Magoo had 43mm CR Honda forks in his RZ and it was a continuous "discussion" between us as to their legality. His excuse was always...."nobody will care or notice, I'm not a winner anyway" accompanied by a wink and a shoulder shrug. If they'd been Yamaha Showa forks I wouldn't have cared. Points like this have to be enforced or racers will keep fudging until we find 'em running 50mm Marzocchi's because "nobody will care or notice".
-
I know I'm gonna regret this. I usually keep out of these discussions for a few reasons such as I know diddly squat about the details and don't care either. But I gotta ask. What is this business re angled and horizontal fork lugs on YZ forks?
Just an opinion here and in no way meant to question the current rules nor to propose a new rule, just an opinion. But given 'Evo' is meant to represent a sort of period, why the angst? There used to be a Pre 80 class but that sort of didn't quite fit the spirit or technology of the time. Evo on the other hand spans the 1978-1985 period, ie when bikes were 'evolving' from twin shock short travel to long travel, single shock bikes with disks and watercooling etc. I think there were twin shock aircooled bikes up to about 84 weren't there?
So isn't the better option to suggest that Evo embraces all bikes that were production based and manufactured before 1985 and marketed as 1984 or earlier models with drums, air cooling and twin shocks. Any period component may be fitted (with period therefore being Pre 85).
That way if you want to bung a 1983 CR500 motor in an RZ frame or use 43mm Showa forks from an 83 you can. Because you could have back in the day.
What's wrong with that? No-one can use a 50mm Marzocchi for the simple reason there weren't any. Or have I completely lost the plot here?
-
I know I'm gonna regret this. But I gotta ask. What is this business re angled and horizontal fork lugs on YZ forks?
The horizontal anti rotation Lug was used on later model Yamaha machines which were also fitted with linkage rear ends. So therefore they are not from an EVO class machine.
Where as the Lug at 45 degrees angle was from Evo class machines. Although they were Mono-shock, they did not have linkage shock attachment.
-
I know I'm gonna regret this. I usually keep out of these discussions for a few reasons such as I know diddly squat about the details and don't care either. But I gotta ask. What is this business re angled and horizontal fork lugs on YZ forks?
Just an opinion here and in no way meant to question the current rules nor to propose a new rule, just an opinion. But given 'Evo' is meant to represent a sort of period, why the angst? There used to be a Pre 80 class but that sort of didn't quite fit the spirit or technology of the time. Evo on the other hand spans the 1978-1985 period, ie when bikes were 'evolving' from twin shock short travel to long travel, single shock bikes with disks and watercooling etc. I think there were twin shock aircooled bikes up to about 84 weren't there?
So isn't the better option to suggest that Evo embraces all bikes that were production based and manufactured before 1985 and marketed as 1984 or earlier models with drums, air cooling and twin shocks. Any period component may be fitted (with period therefore being Pre 85).
That way if you want to bung a 1983 CR500 motor in an RZ frame or use 43mm Showa forks from an 83 you can. Because you could have back in the day.
What's wrong with that? No-one can use a 50mm Marzocchi for the simple reason there weren't any. Or have I completely lost the plot here?
Probably not a bad idea Graeme but from what I experienced in England the twin shock class is now mainly made up of later model reed valve Maicos, CR480 engined Hondas, RM500 engines in RM400 chassis and new Maico Racebase frames fitted with CR480, YZ490 and RM500 engines.
A std 490 Maico, RM400T and YZ465 don't cut it over there.. Is that really what we want?
-
I know I'm gonna regret this. But I gotta ask. What is this business re angled and horizontal fork lugs on YZ forks?
The horizontal anti rotation Lug was used on later model Yamaha machines which were also fitted with linkage rear ends. So therefore they are not from an EVO class machine.
Where as the Lug at 45 degrees angle was from Evo class machines. Although they were Mono-shock, they did not have linkage shock attachment.
It's not just the fact that the lug is horizontal on the later forks but the complete axle mounts are shrunk onto the forks compared to the G/H models being cast into the fork leg giving it a completely different appearance to the Evo forks.
-
The rules are wide open to this, a modern Vincent, complies with the rules 100%
(http://i840.photobucket.com/albums/zz323/foxjg/100_1424-1.jpg) (http://s840.photobucket.com/user/foxjg/media/100_1424-1.jpg.html)
Think this is a earlier version
(http://www.irvingvincent.com/system/bike/picture2/0000/0006/IV_080803_View_A_cropped.jpg)
Vincent 1000
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3098/2558889684_260ac01aa0.jpg)
Given the Horner Bros have time, money and a large CNC workshop at their disposal, there is nothing in the rules to stop anyone doing the same for Evo.
-
Nice Vincent. I like the evolution of that thing, but agree it is probably outside the spirit of the rules?
Probably not a bad idea Graeme but from what I experienced in England the twin shock class is now mainly made up of later model reed valve Maicos, CR480 engined Hondas, RM500 engines in RM400 chassis and new Maico Racebase frames fitted with CR480, YZ490 and RM500 engines.
A std 490 Maico, RM400T and YZ465 don't cut it over there.. Is that really what we want?
welll.... I guess that could be managed by noting that while suspension component swaps within the era are permitted, engines and frames must be as originally fitted to the production machine. Given we can whack $2000 remote reservoir shocks onto a 1979 RM400, does it matter if a 1980 YZ250 ends up with 84 model forks?
Anyway, I didn't mean to derail this into yet more labyrinthine wanderings, I just hadn't heard of the lugs thing. To be honest, it never occurred to me that slipping a set of late model forks off say an 'L' 250 onto an HL500 for example was not a good thing (presuming that an HL500 represents a 1978/79 type motorcycle with SLS front brake and 38mm forks)
-
I know I'm gonna regret this. I usually keep out of these discussions for a few reasons such as I know diddly squat about the details and don't care either. But I gotta ask. What is this business re angled and horizontal fork lugs on YZ forks?
One other thing that some have forgotten is that the besides coming from a water cooled, linkaged bike, the horizontal lugged 43mm forks where also fitted with compression damping adjustment on the bottom of the fork leg that the "Evo Legal" H Model didn't have. And many would consider that to be a performance gain similar to linkage suspension.
I think that is a line in the sand/rules that I can live with. I just wish others could also.
-
IT's had these horizontal lugs, 43mm forks but no adjusments.
-
IT's had these horizontal lugs, 43mm forks but no adjusments.
Beat me to it.
Also somewhat relevant is that the YZ125L (NOT an Evo bike) had the TLS front brake and angled lug - and the external adjustment.
Does the external adjustment matter, particularly considering the cartridge emulators that most serious racers use anyhow?
-
IT's had these horizontal lugs, 43mm forks but no adjusments.
Were they still monoshock in 1982 or had the IT range also gone to linkage?
EDIT: Just googled it, the IT250and 465 J's were still monoshock. Next question then, did it have a horizontal or angled lug? Best I can see the fork leg looks like a H model without the pressed on/over lugs. Surely they would then be the angled lug?
Anyone got an original 250/465J they can confirm?
Double EDIT: .. Surely this would made the 1982 IT range evo legal judging by the pics.
-
IT250/465J are Evo bikes, but had 38mm forks and SLS brakes (with the angled lug).
IT250/490K/L are non-Evo, thanks to the linkage rear ends. They have non-adjustable 43mm forks, TLS front brake and horizontal lug.
The point was that the IT-K forks offer no performance advantage over the YZ-H stuff.
-
FWIW, there are people who'll convert damper rod forks to modern cartridges. They look the same from the outside and may retain fairly easy compression and rebound adjustment.
If done cleverly you've still got access to the compression adjuster though on the ones I've seen you'll have to drop the front axle out to access it instead of just leaning over and turning it with a screwdriver.
All the external adjuster does is allow you to save time tuning the forks without stripping them down to change the internal parts. Most people aren't able to adjust them while riding around the track, though a time or two I've found myself in a position where I could easily reach over and touch the bottom of the fork leg. :)
cheers,
Michael
-
The point was that the IT-K forks offer no performance advantage over the YZ-H stuff.
Okay point taken
-
Righto then .. my head is starting to hurt .. I'll just keep out of it from here-on in :)
You lasted a lot longer than me.....good effort. ::)
-
I posted this earlier in the other thread Nathan started, but this seems to be where all the action is, some I'll put it up here. I also forgot about about the whole lug position when I recently bought some forks for an evo project and am in process of buying the correct forks.
On a practicality basis I dont have any real issue on the use of drum brakes and associated forks (maybe exclude USD if any exist) if the rules were changed to allow, I think it wouldn't improve the performance much and allow more choice/availability and allow bikes to be kept as all one brand.
The issue arises if we then say any air cooled engine is allowed, then we start down the path of bikes similar to those overseas, ie; RM500 engined RM400, KX500 engined KX250A5 etc. But as this would result in a significant performance gain, it could easily be written into the rules that only engines from twin shock/non linkage bikes could be used. I wouldn't even have a great issue with a disc braked, air cooled, twin shock bike (are there any?) being made evo legal with a drum brake front end.
I suppose the problem arises when you give a little bit of latitude in the rules, people will stretch that to breaking point. This could be overcome with rewritten very specific rules, but then you don't want to turn the rules into something resembling legislation that you have to be a QC to comprehend :-\
-
A useful post, BBoy.
FWIW, the rare and expensive Simons aftermarket USD forks were around before 1985, to suit drum brakes. I can't say whether they're legal on an Evo bike or not.
The older RWU Simons forks are widely accepted on Evo bikes, so having aftermarket forks must pass the "OEM" test.
They weren't available until 1982, as best as I can tell.
I think this means they'd be illegal on a YZ250H Evo bike, but legal on a 1983 Husky XC250 Evo bike?!
I await the next round of abuse about how obvious this all is and I'm just a shit stirrer... ::)
-
FWIW, there are people who'll convert damper rod forks to modern cartridges. They look the same from the outside and may retain fairly easy compression and rebound adjustment.
That is why historic road racing classes now only require the forks to look like they are from the correct era.
-
I think bishboys idea is pretty good as long as the rules are clear and reasonably brief.
With the Simons USD I don't think they belong in Evo as all brands bar Husky were single shock by then but Simons and Fox 44mm forks definitely belong in Evo
-
If YOU are unsure it's legal for any class..... just do something you know is. End of all worrying eligibility shit, more time to race or build or bullshit to ya mates or take the missus for a walk then have a spa with the dog or..
-
Geez Nathan, you've got more reverse gears than an Italian tank......do the paperwork mate, let us mull over it and if it's good, we can submit it.....simple.
-
I want to Davey, but the current rules aren't clear enough to know what should (or should not) include.
Yes, the basics are easy. It's the detail where it all gets... impossible.
-
Just do it.
-
And then have everyone moan that I've (inadvertently) changed the rules?!
-
Write it up and send it to Davey, it doesn't have to hit the forum. Don't change too much, the formula works pretty good now.. no hotrods with pre 85 engines or it'll get out of control like the UK.
-
And then have everyone moan that I've (inadvertently) changed the rules?!
So you've done ten pages of all this with bull shit scenarios to prove a point that will never happen that you would never do in the first instance to highlight inferior rules that the majority accept that have been in effect since their inception how ever many years ago, only to now say you don't want to do anything about it? How can you be taken seriously?
If you don't do something about it now, you're just a shit stirrer.
-
I'm perfectly happy to do something about it! Just want to get the details right before I start...
-
I'll say it again....just do it....the brains trust can look at the results and give a yeh or ney.
-
Yeah, but that makes it about 25 times as much work to get right.
-
It'll still be less time than you spend on here..
-
God I thought it was a simple class.
I thought the rule was that if the bike, or parts that you might want to use, came from a twin shock (or monoshock in the case of a Yamaha) bike that was originally aircooled and ran drum brakes ... all as standard OEM equipment, then you could run the bike or the parts.
If it didn't then you can't
Isn't that simple??
-
Look Nathan, do we have to do a Government Royal Commission into this or can you do it for us?
-
Give me a hand on the bits where I don't know, and the answer will be Yes.
Or you can refuse to help, and we can be back on the hampster wheel until Brad's brain explodes.
-
OK, i'll give you a hand.
-
I'm going into the kitchen to poke my eyes out with a fork so I can't read this thread any more lol.
-
Is the SEXMAX finished yet?? It's been the only thing i've enjoyed looking at in this thread so far! ;D ;D Good luck with your endeavours Nathan, cheers. Brendan
-
OK, i'll give you a hand.
We'll be available for consultation at short notice if the need arises
(http://i1260.photobucket.com/albums/ii576/KAB171/untitled_zpsd9dbb4bb.png) (http://s1260.photobucket.com/user/KAB171/media/untitled_zpsd9dbb4bb.png.html)
-
I have an Evo bike, can I get 20 other volunteers to join me Saturday morning at CD10. I vote we stake Nathan out on the top sweeper of the MX track and we'll all line up and give him a damn good Evo roosting! ;D
-
The day you roost me Graeme, I'll have to retire.
-
I also note the way that when you ask a question without an agenda (http://forum.ozvmx.com/index.php?topic=30510.0 and http://forum.ozvmx.com/index.php?topic=30529.0) responses are hard to come by.
But when there's conflict, we get to eleven pages in two days...
;)
-
Don't poke your eyes out yet Brad.....you'll be on the commission.
-
I did say we'd stake you out Nathan. That should level the playing field.
Seriously, I hope you follow through with a proposal for amending the rules. I can't imagine it's that much of a minefield, but I agree, the way the rules are written at present it's all very loose. Look forward to a tighter version in 2014.
-
I thought the rule was that if the bike, or parts that you might want to use, came from a twin shock (or monoshock in the case of a Yamaha) bike that was originally aircooled and ran drum brakes ... all as standard OEM equipment, then you could run the bike or the parts.
If it didn't then you can't
Isn't that simple??
That's it in a nutshell. All this bullshit about Yamaha backing plates and the like is just confusing the situation. Every time I see the claim " it offers no advantage so it should be allowed" I cringe.
Stick to the written rules and Evo is the easiest set of rules to follow in motor racing. As soon as the parameters are fudged, it falls in a shit heap. Go Wabbits.
-
(http://imageshack.us/a/img845/6066/1yw1.jpg)
-
What's your take on Simons USDs on Evo bikes, Firko?
Legal or not?
-
What's your take on Simons USDs on Evo bikes, Firko?
Legal or not?
No Evo bikes came out with USD forks so not legal. I can see this is going to get very messy if you start including anything that was available pre 1985 just because Husky still made twinshock bikes.
-
What sort of fork Brad? A dinky little desert fork or a big salad type? Hmmm, how many tines are legal for a EVO eye poking? Can you use a 4 tine modified to a 3 tine? Maybe later forks have a wider handle - can I grind it down to replicate the forks that were in my nanna's setting? Is a Fondue fork too light to make the minimum weight for EVO eye poke? :-\
-
What's your take on Simons USDs on Evo bikes, Firko?
Legal or not?
To answer the question I need to catch a time machine back to an era when air cooled, drum braked non linkage bikes were the state of the art motocross fodder and see if Simons USD forks were available to the public at that time. Because there are no actual date cutoffs for Evo and because Simons forks didn't come as standard equipment on anything I'd have to say that any aftermarket equipment like Simons forks would have to be sold prior to the advent of the first of the linkaged bikes, ie 1979 or 1980 which I presume precedes the release of Simons USD forks. So, in a nutshell....not legal.
A simple way of solving the problem would be to make a wording amendment to the Evo rules that could read "Conventional forks only, maximum diameter 43mm." The "All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured" line should be changed to " All major components must originate from or be manufactured for drum brake, air cooled non linkaged machines".
Major components are by definition:
*Engine and external aftermarket engine accessories.
*Frame, both OEM and aftermarket,
*Brake hubs and backing plates
*forks
*Tank, mudguards, seat and other bodywork.
-
A simple way of solving the problem would be to make a wording amendment to the Evo rules that could read "Conventional forks only, maximum diameter 43mm."
After reading this thread I'm not clear on what your Evo target period is but it sounds like Thorwaldson "Thorks" and Ribi link forks (both used in 1979) would be "of the period" so link forks shouldn't be excluded by the front suspension rule assuming that teleforks are the only type of fork around.
If you want to limit teleforks then I suggest you word that as "Telescopic forks must be of the conventional type (sliders attached to axle, stanchions to the steering head) . . ."
Speaking of "not a telefork" the late Ollie McKagen's funny front end (FFE) patent was filed in July 1985, and he had prototypes (like his little Honda single) running before that date:
http://www.eurospares.com/mckagen/hoyt004a3.jpg
http://www.eurospares.com/mckagen/hoyt001a5.jpg
I looked through some of the old emails from him and didn't spot a mention of when the first prototype was built, and he's no longer available to ask him about it. Considering the time it can take to prepare to file a patent after doing proof of concept testing it seems likely that the prototype is from 1983/84.
cheers,
Michael
-
Firko dont forget the 44mm Fox forks that were available in 1980. The biggest problem with Nathan playing with the rules is that he wasnt racing back in the era of Evo bikes and he has to ask other people for info and that's where it gets sketchy.
I raced the bikes back in the day and have raced Evo since its inception in '96 and have a bloody good memory of what was around. The rules have worked well and dont need major changes.
-
It's not broken so don't fark with it ...... in 99.9 % of cases it works well how it is and easy to understand.
Once again the eligibility rules are quite clear.
-
The idea Firko and JohnnyO is to get Nathan to re-write them with everyones input so that this type of BS is finished...things like later 43mm forks with the lug in the wrong place are not legal period.....Rusty and everyone else will have to get the correct 250/465H forks for there twin leader brake.
-
Obviously they have not read the eligibility rules then ;)
-
What's your take on Simons USDs on Evo bikes, Firko?
Legal or not?
No Evo bikes came out with USD forks so not legal. I can see this is going to get very messy if you start including anything that was available pre 1985 just because Husky still made twinshock bikes.
They were an aftermarket part that didn't come on any bike. Presumably that means the Fox and Simons RWU forks are also illegal for Evo?
Is it fair to limit Evo to bikes that are pre-1985? It seems to be what everyone thinks, but nobody has really said it yet.
-
What's your take on Simons USDs on Evo bikes, Firko?
Legal or not?
No Evo bikes came out with USD forks so not legal. I can see this is going to get very messy if you start including anything that was available pre 1985 just because Husky still made twinshock bikes.
They were an aftermarket part that didn't come on any bike. Presumably that means the Fox and Simons RWU forks are also illegal for Evo?
This is what pisses me off, when you start with these scenarios. Just use common sense with what was around and used in the day.
My way of thinking is that Evo is basically the 78-81 period, Husky made Twinshock bikes til 84 but they were 81 technology and way behind the 8 ball compared to the rest of the manufacturers.
-
Ok. I do understand the rule of all parts must be from a air cooled, drum braked, non linkage bike. Easy peasy.
But, and this is bound to incite some into a fit of rage and condemnation, BACK to my question about CR250RZ with 43mm forks with TLS, why can I fit the Yamaha fork and brake but not the RB honda when they are both Non adjustabe drum brake front ends?. Surely this should work in with the carry over rule or no performance advantage rules or something alike.
I have the original front end but we all know they aren't much better than aldente' spaghetti. I simply wanted to bring my CR up to spec with the Yamaha front end but using Honda OEM parts. I also have a Yamaha front end but am loath to use it on a Honda. Someone restoring an IT might need the Yamaha fork one day.
I thought it would only be logical that if the Yamaha, that is Evolution legal with 43mm forks and TLS, then it should also be acceptable for the Honda to run the same. Yes, I agree, the Honda fork came from 1982 that had a linkage rear suspension, but it is, for all purpose, exactly the same as the Yamaha fork and brake. Perhaps there is different valving, but that's a mod that most of us do anyway.
Perhaps Nathan could include a line in his revamped rules for Evolution;
" Or similar parts that offer no performance gain over what was available from another manufacturer in the period" or along those lines?
If I had the chance to own a set of Simmons or Fox factory Forx they would go on the bike. The expense and rarity of these parts is a deciding factor for me though.
Don't get me wrong please. I'm not trying to fudge the system, it's just some of the rulings appear to me to be about as clear as mud.
Cheers,
Mark
-
TBM,
I just wonder if there are some other advantages that the Rz has over the yz like maybe a ligter frame (just saying). Then you would be wanting the best of both worlds...
I really don't have a vested interest as i race club level Classic DT only. Believe me there is enough changes to keep up with there also now classic seems to be pre 90, a 75 RM"S" model bike has to run against 89 models
Brett
-
Where do Skunkworks front & rear suspension linkages fit into all this?
-
TBM,
I just wonder if there are some other advantages that the Rz has over the yz like maybe a ligter frame (just saying). Then you would be wanting the best of both worlds...
I really don't have a vested interest as i race club level Classic DT only. Believe me there is enough changes to keep up with there also now classic seems to be pre 90, a 75 RM"S" model bike has to run against 89 models
Brett
Hahahaha. Yes, I do want the best of both worlds ;D
Could it be argued the Yamaha frame is more rigid than the Honda frame?
Ooops ::)
-
TBM if you start bending the rules to allow pre 85 forks then people are going to argue that you should be able to use pre 85 drum brake wheels and pre 85 air cooled motors and so on, it won't just stop at the forks.
By the way RB forks are 41mm, RC & RD are 43..
-
Where do Skunkworks front & rear suspension linkages fit into all this?
John I think Skunkworks was around 1975 so I would say it fits into pre 78.
-
If you want to gain an unfair advantage in EVO racing and be vastly superior to you fellow competitors.
Learn how to jet your bike correctly or pay someone to do it for you. The amount of badly jetted bikes out there must run about 90%.
Loss 10KG. Buy new tryes.
You be building new trophy shelves in no time. ;)
-
TBM if you start bending the rules to allow pre 85 forks then people are going to argue that you should be able to use pre 85 drum brake wheels and pre 85 air cooled motors and so on, it won't just stop at the forks.
By the way RB forks are 41mm, RC & RD are 43..
If it written as so in the rules Johnny, then there can be no bending of the rules.
IE
* A simple rule on forks * A simple rule on engines * A Simple rule on frames and components etc..
I'm not suggesting to Allow pre85 parts in Evo but more a "similar with no advantage" type of ruling.
Thanks for the info regarding the difference between RB and RC forks. I didn't realise that. My forks must be RC then.
At the end of the day, I won't be at the pointy end racing Evo anyway so I guess I won't take it to any championship type event. I like the RC look of the bike and I don't want to change it back to stock. I'll take it to next VCM event at Pakenham and guage if there is any objection to me riding it at club days.
Cheers,
Mark
-
If the rules get rewritten Mark that's a definite possibility. In the early days of Evo I was racing a CR250RA with a CR480 front end.
-
If you want to gain an unfair advantage in EVO racing and be vastly superior to you fellow competitors.
Learn how to jet your bike correctly or pay someone to do it for you. The amount of badly jetted bikes out there must run about 90%.
Loss 10KG. Buy new tryes.
You be building new trophy shelves in no time. ;)
Hahahaha. Point taken :D I could lose a bit more than 10kg, thats for sure. If only I could stay away from the beer fridge that would be an advantage as well, even though I'd have to take valium or the like to put up with the world!
You're absolutely spot on with the badly jetted bikes too. I notice heaps of them. Personally, I don't have a problem timing or jetting a bike.
I always have good tyres on my race bikes. Just like I always have a decent pair of footpegs too. Worn tyres go in the "trailbike" section of the shed. Problem is I don't ride the Husaberg enough.....
I wasn't looking for an unfair advantage. I could hardly be labelled a trophy collector, I need to be a bit faster for that to happen. And the end of the day, I really only attend the nats to ride a different track. I enjoy that aspect of it. I just questioned as to whether or not my bike would comply within the rules as they are stated at the moment as I don't want to piss anybody orf on the start line or be labelled a cheat IF, and it is a very big IF, I happen to do well.
I want to ride the bike as it is and have something different for people to look at. I enjoy the praise I get for the bikes I build. Makes me feel like I don't waste my shed time. And I get a real buzz from fangin around on a bike I cobbled together.
Cheers
-
If the rules get rewritten Mark that's a definite possibility. In the early days of Evo I was racing a CR250RA with a CR480 front end.
That's it in a nutshell Johnny. Unfortunately, I missed the good days of VMX when the grids were full and everything was a bit more relaxed rule wise.
Cheers
-
If the rules get rewritten Mark that's a definite possibility. In the early days of Evo I was racing a CR250RA with a CR480 front end.
That's it in a nutshell Johnny. Unfortunately, I missed the good days of VMX when the grids were full and everything was a bit more relaxed rule wise.
Cheers
The good old days have returned to Qld, full grids and the only protest in sight is on this forum..
I used to travel to NSW and Vic every year to race vmx but those states have lost the plot as leaders of the vmx scene and are a mere shadow of their former selves.
-
My way of thinking is that Evo is basically the 78-81 period, Husky made Twinshock bikes til 84 but they were 81 technology ....
Right - that's useful input right there.
Would it be fair to describe Evo as:
"A class for pre-85 bikes that use the technology that was common until 1981"?
-
My way of thinking is that Evo is basically the 78-81 period, Husky made Twinshock bikes til 84 but they were 81 technology ....
Right - that's useful input right there.
Would it be fair to describe Evo as:
"A class for pre-85 bikes that use the technology that was common until 1981"?
I think it's fair to call Evo the last of the twinshock/non linkage air cooled drum brake bikes. The end of an era.. trouble with saying 81 technology is Kawasaki, Suzuki, Honda and Yamaha had single shock and or water cooling by then..
-
Correct me if I'm wrong:
Before 1981, the only vaguely common bikes that didn't meet the drum/air/no linkage criteria was the 1980 KTM125 and the 1980 KXes?
-
Correct me if I'm wrong:
Before 1981, the only vaguely common bikes that didn't meet the drum/air/no linkage criteria was the 1980 KTM125 and the 1980 KXes?
Yes with the KXs, I think the 125 KTM was still air cooled til 81.
-
OK.
Ignoring the 1980 model KXes for the moment:
Evo is pre-81, but with allowances for certain pre-85 bikes.
Anyone disagree with that?
-
OK.
Ignoring the 1980 model KXes for the moment:
Evo is pre-81, but with allowances for certain pre-85 bikes.
Anyone disagree with that?
Pre 82 Nathan, maico mega 2 and YZ465H and KTM Twinshock are 81 models. Defining it ins year cutoff brings 81 single shock rm, cr and kx's into the equation and loses the twinshock air cooled category..
-
Pre-81 doesn't catch anything we don't want, apart from the '80 model KXes.
The 81+ bikes that we DO want fit into the "certain Pre-85 bikes" bit.
I'm just kicking around ideas of how to cleanly exclude YZ-L forks, Simons USDs, etc. Defining it as "Pre-81 plus some" seems like the best way to kill off those things (and the SexMax).
-
Ok all good..
-
"Pre-81 plus some"
Uh huh. Now the fuzzy bit starts which got this whole thread started.
-
"Pre-81 plus some"
Uh huh. Now the fuzzy bit starts which got this whole thread started.
I'm waiting to see what he comes up with before commenting..
-
That's why there isn't a date on it. Can't be done.
Piss off the oem bit and the converting later equipment to comply bit.
Put in
Bike must be air cooled, drum braked and twin shock.
Converting a water cooled and or disc braked and or single shock bike to comply is not allowed.
Using parts from a water cooled and or disc braked and or single shocked bike is not allowed.
Also maybe that bikes must have been manufactured from 1978 onwards to comply.
-
Bike must be air cooled, drum braked and twin shock.
twin shock/non linkage
Got to cater for those YZ's
-
Bike must be air cooled, drum braked and twin shock.
twin shock/non linkage
Got to cater for those YZ's
Yeah I actually wrote that first time then the internet dropped out wiping it all. Missed it second time around.
-
The first few years of Evo, 93-96, it was actually called twinshock and there were no YZ's racing then '97 it was renamed Evolution after the class of the same name in the US.
-
Brad - this is where it all turns pair shaped ..... if you allow air cooled motors from linkage bikes, they will say why not the forks and TLS brakes that go with it. Oem and converting is in for that exact reason.
No Forken way hosay
-
Brad - this is where it all turns pair shaped ..... if you allow air cooled motors from linkage bikes, they will say why not the forks and TLS brakes that go with it. Oem and converting is in for that exact reason.
No Forken way hosay
Read my wording again Stew.
Using parts from a water cooled and or disc braked and or single shocked bike is not allowed.
-
"Pre-81 plus some"
Uh huh. Now the fuzzy bit starts which got this whole thread started.
That wording has no place in any rule book. Aiming for the details of the intent first.
-
Yamaha are single shock ... they are out then ???
-
Yamaha are single shock ... they are out then ???
Come on Stew, keep up...
Bike must be air cooled, drum braked and twin shock.
twin shock/non linkage
Got to cater for those YZ's
Yeah I actually wrote that first time then the internet dropped out wiping it all. Missed it second time around.
-
Ok I'm back.
Nathan please read the MOMs there is a page there that explains how to suggest a rule change. Your suggestion is sent to the MA Classic MX Commission, who decide whether or not it is a reasonable or necessary change. They then put their recommendations in their minutes and they are distributed to the SCBs. The SCBs send their responses to MA who pass then onto the Commission and then they make a recommendation to the MA Board, who say yes or no. Their is no need for it to be debated here and drive the majority of us nuts.
Personally I don't think the rules need to be changed. If someone wants to build a modern bike (a manufacturer) OEM stands for "original equipment manufacture" let them. Modifying a bike from another manufacturer is not OEM. I'm sure the same thing will happen as does with F1. If a team builds something that dominates or could it is very quickly banned. As an example the fan car, 2 stroke F2 motor, oval piston motors. Really we need to use the KISS rule "Kept it Simple Stupid".
If there are riders using parts from linkage machines etc protest them.
Also I'm sure there are other bikes out there (other than a postie) that would comply with Evo rules, but any of these bikes are old designs. The Indian Enfields when they had drum brakes would comply, but they are a 1956 design.
Anyway it is up to you Nathan read the MOMs and submit your proposed rule change and stop upsetting the rest of the forum.
Kevin
-
Old fart, Yamaha is non linkage C D E F,,,,, ???
-
Kevin, I know how it works.
I fully understand that I could do this, and then have it dismissed off-hand by the commission. The NIH factor is always present, too.
The idea is that it will have the greatest chance of succeeding if it has been through the wringer of OzVMX first. If its crap, then it can sink without a trace, no harm done.
One of the things about this forum is that its very conservative and there's lots of strong personalities. Anything that's even vaguely controversial doesn't go by without a fight...
Nothing ever happens without "upsetting the forum"...
-
If you know how to change a GCR well do it. The MA Classic MX Commission are the place to start. There are several rules in the GCRs that I am responsible for and I didn't go to all this trouble to get them in.
As far as I'm concerned the rules for EVO do not need to be changed.
If anyone else agrees please say so. So we can stop this Mass Debate.
Kevin
-
As far as I'm concerned the rules for EVO do not need to be changed.
I agree. They just need to be made a lot clearer.
I am certainly not interested in changing the rules - you may have noticed that my questions have largely been about making sure my understanding of the rules matches the accepted understanding.
-
. Unfortunately, I missed the good days of VMX when the grids were full and everything was a bit more relaxed rule wise.
When was that exactly? The rules have always been enforced to the nth degree at National level meetings right back as far as 1992 when the rules were first formalised into MoMs. There is no good old "more relaxed" days. I do however agree that the grids were once much fuller, up to three time fuller with pre 75 bikes alone. Somehow a lot of mojo has been lost along the way.
-
As far as I'm concerned the rules for EVO do not need to be changed.
I agree. They just need to be made a lot clearer.
I am certainly not interested in changing the rules - you may have noticed that my questions have largely been about making sure my understanding of the rules matches the accepted understanding.
Well thats good news.. Initially I thought some people's aim was to change them which bothered me but wording them better will hopefully stop a lot of the eligibility queries on here.
-
There is no year cutoff that would work for Evo. The rules are fine as they are except for some poor wording. A day later I still think I've simplified the wording to the degree that it's all you really need.
A simple way of solving the problem would be to make a wording amendment to the Evo rules that could read "Conventional forks only, maximum diameter 43mm." The "All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured" line should be changed to " All major components must originate from or be manufactured for drum brake, air cooled non linkaged machines".
Major components are by definition:
*Engine and external aftermarket engine accessories.
*Frame, both OEM and aftermarket,
*Brake hubs and backing plates
*forks
*Tank, mudguards, seat and other bodywork.
-
Firko don't forget about the Fox 44mm conventional forks.
I don't know that you need to include the tank, bodywork line. There's a few guys using J model Yamaha tank/seat combos on their H model Evo bikes and I don see a problem with that.
-
There is no year cutoff that would work for Evo. The rules are fine as they are except for some poor wording. A day later I still think I've simplified the wording to the degree that it's all you really need.
A simple way of solving the problem would be to make a wording amendment to the Evo rules that could read "Conventional forks only, maximum diameter 43mm." The "All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured" line should be changed to " All major components must originate from or be manufactured for drum brake, air cooled non linkaged machines".
Major components are by definition:
*Engine and external aftermarket engine accessories.
*Frame, both OEM and aftermarket,
*Brake hubs and backing plates
*forks
*Tank, mudguards, seat and other bodywork.
I definitely agree with the need for a definition of "major components", and not just for Evo.
But I still think that Evo needs some sort of minimum age - otherwise the SexMax is still legal and it still isn't a historic class.
Pretty sure that a hard "Pre-85 with carry-overs" cut-off is the way to go.
I'm also thinking a statement of intent for each era would be helpful, particularly as it gives the "spirit of the era" stuff some bite.
-
There is a girl in Qld racing a DT175 monoshock, I think it's a 90's model? That will cause problems with a year cut off
-
There is a girl in Qld racing a DT175 monoshock, I think it's a 90's model? That will cause problems with a year cut off
Noted.
-
Firko don't forget about the Fox 44mm conventional forks.
I don't know that you need to include the tank, bodywork line. There's a few guys using J model Yamaha tank/seat combos on their H model Evo bikes and I don see a problem with that.
OK, then, make the cutoff 44mm. The "major components" definition would prevent non Evo eligible forks anyway. Like in all other divisions of the sport, you'd be required to show proof of period availability (dated magazine articles, ads and catalogues etc).
I believe the bodywork line should remain to try and prevent owners from changing the bikes "period" appearance. I've seen a couple of evo and pre 85 bikes with CR450F/YZ450F style mudguards and they detracted from the whole period feel of the bikes. The example you quote is exactly what I think needs to be prevented. The J model safety seat and tank changes the total look of the H model, your eye is naturally drawn to the distinctive red seat subliminally setting up a doubt as to what model you're looking at. I can understand why owners do it but if the rules state categorically that they can't fit later bodywork, the period integrity of the H model and similar examples are kept intact...the difference line is no longer blurred.
-
What about safety seat kits for YZ H models using standard tank.
-
What about safety seat kits for YZ H models using standard tank.
Thats fine as they were available in the day..
-
Firko don't forget about the Fox 44mm conventional forks.
I don't know that you need to include the tank, bodywork line. There's a few guys using J model Yamaha tank/seat combos on their H model Evo bikes and I don see a problem with that.
OK, then, make the cutoff 44mm. The "major components" definition would prevent non Evo eligible forks anyway. Like in all other divisions of the sport, you'd be required to show proof of period availability (dated magazine articles, ads and catalogues etc).
I believe the bodywork line should remain to try and prevent owners from changing the bikes "period" appearance. I've seen a couple of evo and pre 85 bikes with CR450F/YZ450F style mudguards and they detracted from the whole period feel of the bikes. The example you quote is exactly what I think needs to be prevented. The J model safety seat and tank changes the total look of the H model, your eye is naturally drawn to the distinctive red seat hypothetically setting up a doubt as to what model you're looking at. I can understand why owners do it but if the rules state categorically that they can't fit later bodywork, the period integrity of the H model and similar examples are kept intact...the difference line is no longer blurred.
Fair enough.. I was just thinking some people are going to be pissed but that's life!
-
Fair enough.. I was just thinking some people are going to be pissed but that's life!
As these 15 pages show, not everyone has the same opinions on Evo but once it's clear to all what's yay or nay , the sport can just get on with it. I agree with Nathan in the fact that the eligibility wording for Evo is in need of a tune up but I disagree that we have to spell everything out to the nth degree. My amendments and perhaps a couple more are all that I think are needed. The whole success of Evo is its simplicity so complicating the current one paragraph of rules with endless eligibility criteria would be damaging to the simple intent of the class.
-
Fair enough.. I was just thinking some people are going to be pissed but that's life!
As these 15 pages show, not everyone has the same opinions on Evo but once it's clear to all what's yay or nay , the sport can just get on with it. I agree with Nathan in the fact that the eligibility wording for Evo is in need of a tune up but I disagree that we have to spell everything out to the nth degree. My amendments and perhaps a couple more are all that I think are needed. The whole success of Evo is its simplicity so complicating the current one paragraph of rules with endless eligibility criteria would be damaging to the simple intent of the class.
I couldn't agree more, keep it simple. I love the class, it represents a great era in motocross..
-
. Unfortunately, I missed the good days of VMX when the grids were full and everything was a bit more relaxed rule wise.
When was that exactly? The rules have always been enforced to the nth degree at National level meetings right back as far as 1992 when the rules were first formalised into MoMs. There is no good old "more relaxed" days. I do however agree that the grids were once much fuller, up to three time fuller with pre 75 bikes alone. Somehow a lot of mojo has been lost along the way.
Fair enough Mark. that was just my interpretation of what I have read about meetings from long ago. Point taken!
-
There is no year cutoff that would work for Evo. The rules are fine as they are except for some poor wording. A day later I still think I've simplified the wording to the degree that it's all you really need.
A simple way of solving the problem would be to make a wording amendment to the Evo rules that could read "Conventional forks only, maximum diameter 43mm." The "All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured" line should be changed to " All major components must originate from or be manufactured for drum brake, air cooled non linkaged machines".
Major components are by definition:
*Engine and external aftermarket engine accessories.
*Frame, both OEM and aftermarket,
*Brake hubs and backing plates
*forks
*Tank, mudguards, seat and other bodywork.
This seems perfectly clear to me... Bugger! 43mm Honda forks are still out :-\
I don't want to over complicate the rules, but, could there also be a ruling that reads something like?:
Conventional type forks up to a maximum diameter of 44mm that were ORIGINALLY DESIGNED FOR DRUM BRAKES are eligible
I only ask this as I think it to be a ridiculous situation where I can mount 43mm OEM Yamaha forks onto my Honda but I can't mount 43mm OEM Honda forks because they came from a bike with a linkage rear suspension ???
Again, I don't want to stir the pot and I will NOT argue my case over and over again. It's just a suggestion and I feel now may be the time to make my case while you guys are collectively working on "tidying up" the rules regarding Evolution bikes.
Cheers,
Mark
-
TBM it sounds like you want the rule change because it doesnt suit your specific situation. A completely understandable reason ...... but hardly a vote winner in my electorate ;D
You present an argument to support your problem being the rules are "ridiculous" but your problem seems to me to be just that the proposed rules don't suit what you want to do. The rules are not actually the problem as I see it. Your plans are the problem as they are not within the proposed rules.
Many people have similar "problem" with suspension travel rules when their era specific OEM bike has more travel. Why do I have to restrict travel? - its ridiculous as back in the day....etc etc.
Sometimes trying to second guess the thinking behind the rules is an exercise in futility. Just build a bike that meets the rules ;)
-
There is no year cutoff that would work for Evo. The rules are fine as they are except for some poor wording. A day later I still think I've simplified the wording to the degree that it's all you really need.
A simple way of solving the problem would be to make a wording amendment to the Evo rules that could read "Conventional forks only, maximum diameter 43mm." The "All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured" line should be changed to " All major components must originate from or be manufactured for drum brake, air cooled non linkaged machines".
Major components are by definition:
*Engine and external aftermarket engine accessories.
*Frame, both OEM and aftermarket,
*Brake hubs and backing plates
*forks
*Tank, mudguards, seat and other bodywork.
This seems perfectly clear to me... Bugger! 43mm Honda forks are still out :-\
I don't want to over complicate the rules, but, could there also be a ruling that reads something like?:
Conventional type forks up to a maximum diameter of 44mm that were ORIGINALLY DESIGNED FOR DRUM BRAKES are eligible
I only ask this as I think it to be a ridiculous situation where I can mount 43mm OEM Yamaha forks onto my Honda but I can't mount 43mm OEM Honda forks because they came from a bike with a linkage rear suspension ???
The other option is to do what they did back in the day and fit 38mm Simons or 44mm Fox forks.. You'll have a much cooler bike as well!
-
This seems perfectly clear to me... Bugger! 43mm Honda forks are still out :-\
I don't want to over complicate the rules, but, could there also be a ruling that reads something like?:
Conventional type forks up to a maximum diameter of 44mm that were ORIGINALLY DESIGNED FOR DRUM BRAKES are eligible
I only ask this as I think it to be a ridiculous situation where I can mount 43mm OEM Yamaha forks onto my Honda but I can't mount 43mm OEM Honda forks because they came from a bike with a linkage rear suspension ???
Again, I don't want to stir the pot and I will NOT argue my case over and over again. It's just a suggestion and I feel now may be the time to make my case while you guys are collectively working on "tidying up" the rules regarding Evolution bikes.
Mark, while I understand your frustration, there simply has to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere. The Yamaha forks are a lot better anyway which is weird seeing that they're both made by Showa.
-
The Yams forks are KYB Firko, I will have a genuine safety seat in my workshop in a few weeks on a 465H that I can take photo's/measurements off.
-
Thanks guys. I don't have any issue with it at all. You guys have been involved in the movement for a hell of a lot longer than me so far be it for me to continue with my line of thinking on the "fork rule".
However, perhaps my wording could of been better and made to read less like it was all about me. There are plenty of Honda builders out there that I'm sure would rather use OEM Honda parts than mix and match.
It's really not that a big an issue to me personally. I just figured changing the ruling as I suggested may make the rule "crystal clear(er)"
As for my RC replica, I'll just use the bike for club days if there are no objections. As I previously stated, I like the RC look and I intend on keeping the bike the way it is. It cost me a small fortune!
If it doesn't get accepted at club level, well, I guess it will go back in the lounge room only to see the light of day at HBBB or the like and I might be able to fund another evolution build sometime. I have a pile of poo CR250RZ in the shed that requires a big injection of time and money.
In the short term, I'll just keep on with pre75 over 263 on my beeza and pre78... That's IF my XL410 passes scrutiny ::) Afterall, All the body work on it was designed for a '76 CR and it now has 9" suspension travel....None of which an XL350 ever had ::)
Cheers,
Mark
-
The Yams forks are KYB Firko, I will have a genuine safety seat in my workshop in a few weeks on a 465H that I can take photo's/measurements off.
Doh...Another pensioner medication moment :o. I originally thought they were Kayaba but I started doubting and finally convinced myself they were Showas, too bloody lazy to make the effort to go out to the shed and take a look at my IT465 forks.
-
As for my RC replica, I'll just use the bike for club days if there are no objections. As I previously stated, I like the RC look and I intend on keeping the bike the way it is. It cost me a small fortune
Why not ride it in pre 85?
-
Thanks guys. I don't have any issue with it at all. You guys have been involved in the movement for a hell of a lot longer than me so far be it for me to continue with my line of thinking on the "fork rule".
However, perhaps my wording could of been better and made to read less like it was all about me. There are plenty of Honda builders out there that I'm sure would rather use OEM Honda parts than mix and match.
It's really not that a big an issue to me personally. I just figured changing the ruling as I suggested may make the rule "crystal clear(er)"
As for my RC replica, I'll just use the bike for club days if there are no objections. As I previously stated, I like the RC look and I intend on keeping the bike the way it is. It cost me a small fortune!
If it doesn't get accepted at club level, well, I guess it will go back in the lounge room only to see the light of day at HBBB or the like and I might be able to fund another evolution build sometime. I have a pile of poo CR250RZ in the shed that requires a big injection of time and money.
In the short term, I'll just keep on with pre75 over 263 on my beeza and pre78... That's IF my XL410 passes scrutiny ::) Afterall, All the body work on it was designed for a '76 CR and it now has 9" suspension travel....None of which an XL350 ever had ::)
Cheers,
Mark
What makes you think 76 CR parts and 9 inches of suspension on a XL isn't legal for pre 78?
As Firko said ride your RC relica in pre 85.. Problems solvered!
-
I did give some consideration to riding it in pre85, though it hardly seems fair. How disgusting would an RZ look with a disc brake on it?
Apart from that, I have a CR250RE waiting for some love as well. We'll see what happens when we closer to the Post Classics.
I don't actually think there is anything illegal about the XL Johnny. I did my best to keep it within the bounds of pre78 rules. If a ruling about changing body work comes into play then there could be ambiguities...
It also has some ultra rare factory kyb forks that have attracted some attention even at club level, even though they are 9" travel and with a 76 CR front hub. Blokes have tried to argue with me that they are 79 CR forks when they are nothing like them. The stanchions look similar with the step down bit between the triples but the axle pinch bolt area is totally different to any other make of fork I have in the shed. I removed them from a IT250H resto I did a few years back when I realised they weren't the correct fork. The only place I have seen a picture of the fork is in an article (on here somewhere by GMC) about the SP370 Hallam Suzuki that also actually states what the forks are. If I take a copy of that article with me to the Nats then all should be sweet.
Its such a sweet bike to ride and has no problems keeping up with anything pre78. Well, apart from one guy on a 440 Maico when it's going....
Cheers
-
Is anyone out there brave enough to argue this point with Nathan?
Nathan the great debater once again takes on all comers in the ring.
He has beaten off many a competitor in previous engagements and now is trying to prove himself yet again in another mass debate.
Many have floundered in the past under Nathan’s persistent trademark sleeper hold and now Firko wavers under the constant pounding but he refuses to say die and in a last gasp he reaches to the ropes and GMC gets a tag.
The spectators look on in anticipation, half of them shout out “hit him over the head when the Referee isn’t looking”
The other half are asleep, so powerful is Nathans sleeper hold.
GMC resists the incredible urge and tries to fight fair, he puts the chair back down even though his manager is still distracting the Ref.
Will GMC be able to have any impact?
The round continues…
Do you have any proof that your Sexmax existed and that it was originally equipped with the parts that are on it?
Brochures, sales receipts etc
Here you go Nathan, you can keep this going by arguing the definition of ‘original equipment manufacture’
18.5.6.1 Bikes will be OEM (original equipment manufacture).
18.5.6.2 Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed.
18.5.6.3 All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured:
a) No linkage suspension,
b) No disk brakes,
c) air cooled motors.
If the SexMax is built, then it exists and that's all that matters. The Evo rules don't demand that it existed in 1980, 1984, 1989 or any other year: as written, the Evo class is NOT a historic class. It is a class that demands some superseded technical features, but nothing more.
And as I said, they are commercially available for a mere $29,990. 50% up front, and I'll build as many as you want. (Not that "commercially available" is in the CMX rules, but hey, I'm a nice guy and the SexMax is a great bike).
The OEM of the bike is SexMax - I've just used some KTM parts, in exactly the same way KTM just used some WP, Michelin and Keihin parts when they made their 300EXC (also consider Alrons, "Yamaha" HL500s, Metisses, CCMs, etc. [Or HSVs, the Proton Evo6s, etc]).
The lack of definition of OEM means that once I claim to be the manufacturer, all bets are off - the SexMax300 isn't in the KTM catalogue.
I know I'm going to regret even commenting on this, but the mass-debating going on here is annoying the crap out of me.
If you built the SexMax Nathan, and marketed it, you would still not be the Manufacturer. KTM would still be the Manufacturer, and you would be classed as no more than an aftermarket modifier of the vehicle.
If you tried to call yourself the manufacturer of the vehicle, KTM would sue so fast, you wouldn't even have time to front up to even one event....
-
Nonsense, on so many levels that I can't even believe you said it.
It's irrelevant anyhow - if it makes you happier, imagine I employed GMC to build me a new frame, got brand new closed chamber forks and shock directly from Showa/Kayaba/WP/Marzocchi. New plastics from UFO. New PWK from Keihin. Etc. Making it a thoroughly modern 2013 Evo bike all the way.
The KTM-based example was used to demonstrate how it would be easily possible, and isn't purely out in the realm of hypothetical.
-
Beta sell and market KTM's under the Beta banner
-
Nonsense, on so many levels that I can't even believe you said it.
I can say the same regarding you using a sexmax as a basis for your arguement, yet....
Beta sell and market KTM's under the Beta banner
For free? I think not. I'm sure they didn't buy a heap and just rebrand either.
-
Beta sell and market KTM's under the Beta banner
Not quite, the Beta enduro bikes from a few years ago used a KTM motor & the rest of the bike was there own.
Beta builds the small KTM 2stroke mx bikes
-
Summary.
Nathans hypothetical questions have of now resulted in 16 pages. Normal
There have been many diversions from the debate. Normal
Some have been enlightening, some have been rubbish. Normal
The quality posts and the dribbling shit will continue with no real sensible outcome . Very normal.
Back to it now, but somewhere along the line ask yourself "are some of these diatribes maybe putting others off joining or continuing in our pastime?"
Have a good day. Tim754
-
Noting Tim's point...
Now we're talking about licencing agreements and marketing?
Relevance?
But apparently it's Nathan who loves to argue over everything? ;)
-
hi, the rule book state's in rule 18.5.4.1 "Acceptable for the pre 75 class are machine's and components built up to and including 1974" , so why are modern electronic ignition systems , special valves in forks allowed as these "components" were not around in 74 .
-
Out of sight Out of mind
-
hi, the rule book state's in rule 18.5.4.1 "Acceptable for the pre 75 class are machine's and components built up to and including 1974" , so why are modern electronic ignition systems , special valves in forks allowed as these "components" were not around in 74 .
The short answer is internal modifications are acceptable.
You can improve your bike but it should still look externally the same.
But guys really, you need to stop this before more threats of self harm with forks starts happening…
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health-fitness/canberra-man-lodges-fork-in-penis/story-fneuzlbd-1226699880200
-
Good questions Mr Toe , ignitions of any era have been allowed in the rules for all forms of classic and vintage racing in Australia for basically ever. You can use what you like provided it does not change the external looks of the machine from original . Old magneto and later points systems just cannot cut it, leading to many bikes dieing whilst competing on race circuits with then obvious safety issues. Not to mention not being able to find anyone that builds,sells or even can carry out repairs the OEM stuff . Sensible approach that the great percentage of historic racers strangely agree with . :)
Modern internal suspension upgrades.....Hmmm bucket of rotting fish guts sort of deal.... ::)
-
hi, the rule book state's in rule 18.5.4.1 "Acceptable for the pre 75 class are machine's and components built up to and including 1974" , so why are modern electronic ignition systems , special valves in forks allowed as these "components" were not around in 74 .
Until recently, Ignitions were specifically mentioned as something that was free - and had been back to the very early days.
There's also the issue of enforcing it - it is much more time consuming to start pulling bikes apart, and also much more difficult to prove what internals should look like (compared to external parts).
-
hi, the rule book state's in rule 18.5.4.1 "Acceptable for the pre 75 class are machine's and components built up to and including 1974" , so why are modern electronic ignition systems , special valves in forks allowed as these "components" were not around in 74 .
But guys really, you need to stop this before more threats of self harm with forks starts happening…
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health-fitness/canberra-man-lodges-fork-in-penis/story-fneuzlbd-1226699880200
Exactly what, pray tell, did you type into the google machine to find that gem of a news story? :o ;D
-
Nonsense, on so many levels that I can't even believe you said it.
It's irrelevant anyhow - if it makes you happier, imagine I employed GMC to build me a new frame, got brand new closed chamber forks and shock directly from Showa/Kayaba/WP/Marzocchi. New plastics from UFO. New PWK from Keihin. Etc. Making it a thoroughly modern 2013 Evo bike all the way.
The KTM-based example was used to demonstrate how it would be easily possible, and isn't purely out in the realm of hypothetical.
Ah Nathan, it must be truly wonderful to live in a fantasyland so utterly devoid of any semblance of reality..
What you're describing is a kit bike - you're building nothing but a frame to which you're bolting already existing non-Evo legal components.
Who's manufacturing your drum brake hubs for you? Or are you going to use second hand components?
Shock directly from Showa/Kayaba/WP/Marzocchi. You can do that already. Or get a custom shock from one of the many existing purveyors of quality VMX shock absorbers around.
Brand new closed chamber forks directly from Showa/Kayaba/WP/Marzocchi. I would imagine that if they've already been used on a production bike that isn't currently Evo legal, then you'll have a problem getting them through scrutineering.
Are you going to sign that licencing agreement with KTM/Honda/Yamaha to rebrand their motor to your SexMax brand? If you rebrand the motor without the licencing agreement, they'll sue you out of existence.
If you just remove the water jacket and add fins to a KTM/Honda/Yamaha motor? It's not eligible as it's still just a modified non-Evo motor.
If you do sign a licencing agreement (for much money I would imagine), then unless you get them to design you a new motor from the ground up - it's just a copy of an existing non-Evo motor and again, stands little chance of passing the first scrutineering it's taken to.
Not to mention the whole homologation issue - how many bikes need to be produced to be considered a production vehicle? 200 or so?
But apparently it's Nathan who loves to argue over everything? ;)
Well it certainly does seem that way......
-
1. Where is there a requirement for bikes to be homologated?
2. It wouldn't be copying KTM parts - every SexMax built would be a sale for KTM. Your argument is based on the scenario that I was making a KTM-copy and selling it as a KTM, which is entirely the opposite to what I've suggested.
3. KTM would be highly unlikely to chase anyone over one or two bikes, even if it was that reversed situation. There's a hell of a lot of Chinese-made "KTM" 50s being advertised apparently without fear.
4. You're still hung up on the assumption that a 2013 bike can't be Evo legal, despite at assumption being unsupported by the rules.
5. It's all an irrelevant distraction because you want to argue.
-
Give it a rest Nathan....The Sexmax is dead. Kaput.
-
hi, the rule book state's in rule 18.5.4.1 "Acceptable for the pre 75 class are machine's and components built up to and including 1974" , so why are modern electronic ignition systems , special valves in forks allowed as these "components" were not around in 74 .
But guys really, you need to stop this before more threats of self harm with forks starts happening…
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health-fitness/canberra-man-lodges-fork-in-penis/story-fneuzlbd-1226699880200
Exactly what, pray tell, did you type into the google machine to find that gem of a news story? :o ;D
[/quote]
"Well fork me dead said foreskin Fred" ... was never closer to the mark :'( Must have been searching for fork sag setting methods!
-
I've been trying to have it killed by the rules from the start.
Sadly, it lives - and irrelevant crap about homologation does nothing to change that.
-
And I thought this thread was about helping some of us not so vmx savvy types figure out what can and what can't be done ???
Dealing with "hypothetical" nonsense is just that.....NONSENSE
-
OK Nathan..I think we've tidied up the wording anomalies for Evo a few pages ago so what are you aiming for with this boring SexMax hypothetical? What wording would you like to see in MoMs to counter the SexMax? This has been going in circles for 17 pages and while others have pretty much solved the Evo eligibility criteria problems with a few simple upgrade proposals, you've continued on this lonely SexMax line of thought for reasons known only to yourself. Surely it's dawned on you that you're the only one that sees the SexMax thing as relevant to the argument? Most everyone else sees it as pedantic nonsense.
As Brad, Joan and myself (and others) have earlier suggested, it's now time to stop the irrelevant hypothetical bullshit and assemble a set if simple and usable Evo regs and submit them to MA via your club. By continuing to harp on about the stupid SexMax and calling for a year cutoff you're only complicating what should be a very simple set of rules. If you aren't ready to do something now...you'll never be ready.
-
OK Nathan..I think we've tidied up the wording anomalies for Evo a few pages ago so what are you aiming for with this boring SexMax hypothetical? What wording would you like to see in MoMs to counter the SexMax? This has been going in circles for 17 pages and while others have pretty much solved the Evo eligibility criteria problems with a few simple upgrade proposals, you've continued on this lonely SexMax line of thought for reasons known only to yourself. Surely it's dawned on you that you're the only one that sees the SexMax thing as relevant to the argument? Most everyone else sees it as pedantic nonsense.
As Brad, Joan and myself (and others) have earlier suggested, it's now time to stop the irrelevant hypothetical bullshit and assemble a set if simple and usable Evo regs and submit them to MA via your club. By continuing to harp on about the stupid SexMax and calling for a year cutoff you're only complicating what should be a very simple set of rules. If you aren't ready to do something now...you'll never be ready.
LOL .. you lasted a lot longer than me this time Firko ... I stopped reading this thread a few days ago. All respect to Nathan though .... you have serious staying power ;)
Is it just me or has the forum traffic been quieter since these eligibilty/class thread have been running?? Just my humble opinion of course but I think we're killing the fun. I have the luxury of multiple computer screens and a job that allows me to glance at the forum (or whatever I want) from time to time but I'm struggling to keep up with these thread. If I am then I'm sure others are as well. So maybe it's time to to finish up the campaign and let us all move on.
-
I'm over it Simo as I'm guessing are 90% of the punters who frequent here.
-
As far as I'm concerned the rules for EVO do not need to be changed.
I agree. They just need to be made a lot clearer.
I am certainly not interested in changing the rules - you may have noticed that my questions have largely been about making sure my understanding of the rules matches the accepted understanding.
This was Nathan's response on page 14. So why is the debate still going on?????
Who has the power to lock this thread???? Please do so!!!!!!!!!!!! Do I have a seconder for this emotion?
-
Apparently he only has one page to go to equal his record though.
-
Is it just me or has the forum traffic been quieter since these eligibilty/class thread have been running?? Just my humble opinion of course but I think we're killing the fun.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1P2YDs-qH_8/T4NYkCfSTgI/AAAAAAAAA5w/dH6w7c19T8U/s140/dr-cox-gif.gif)
-
Poor Enzo906 what a question for a newbie as the starter of this mess. Enzo just follow the Ma rule book don't worrie about anything else and go out and enjoy your bike , keep away from here if you want to stay sane . Iain
-
Who has the power to lock this thread???? Please do so!!!!!!!!!!!! Do I have a seconder for this emotion?
As much as this thread is becoming a tiresome expose into Nathans steadfast and obssesive need to be right all the time...being boring isn't proper grounds to shut down a thread. That reeks of a tad too much Big Brother.
I say keep it going, if you don't like it don't look at it (as I've been told numerous times during my anti politics stance). The only thing being hurt here is Nathans credibility.
-
Ok no worries. Can someone point out to me who Nathan S is, at the next event we might both be at. Then I can join the list of riders who want to help him see what is on the other side of the berm.
Kevin
-
Who has the power to lock this thread???? Please do so!!!!!!!!!!!! Do I have a seconder for this emotion?
As much as this thread is becoming a tiresome expose into Nathans steadfast and obssesive need to be right all the time...being boring isn't proper grounds to shut down a thread. That reeks of a tad too much Big Brother.
I say keep it going, if you don't like it don't look at it (as I've been told numerous times during my anti politics stance). The only thing being hurt here is Nathans credibility.
What?? And miss this sort of GOLD
Is it just me or has the forum traffic been quieter since these eligibilty/class thread have been running?? Just my humble opinion of course but I think we're killing the fun.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1P2YDs-qH_8/T4NYkCfSTgI/AAAAAAAAA5w/dH6w7c19T8U/s140/dr-cox-gif.gif)
But alas Mark, you are completely correct. If you don't like it stop looking. It's a simple concept but you know whilst I'm not wading into the debate I'm slightly concerned about the end result, what it will do to the bikes we own and ride now and what it might do to the future of the class. Like eveyeone else, I'm hoping it will all be for the benefit (why else would you put yourself through all this) but I've got to say I'm not convinced just yet.
So back to my corner .. now where's my popcorn :)
EDIT - 18 Pages .. woohoo is that a record??
-
No, 18 only equals the record. 19 would be a record. So everyone stop responding.
-
Don't let them get to you Nathan, your doing a fine job, just keep it on track. ;D
-
This has been building for at least six years. The absolute insanity of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result has finally gotten to me - both in terms of the endless debates about eligibility and my own part in them.
The SexMax is used to demonstrate that the Evo rules (despite the brilliance of their intent) actually fail to define the class the way we want it defined.
The SexMax was put up as a big, juicy target - something so offensive that everyone would want to shoot down.
Funny thing is, despite eighteen pages and plenty of different marksmen stepping up, nobody's managed to land a shot on it yet. The sense of frustration is clear - all the shots at me and the dredging up irrelevancies show this (google "cognitive dissonance" for one part of it).
So, finally, we're at the point where people are entertaining the idea that maybe the rules could be improved...
And what makes anyone think that I haven't put any work into the re-write? ::) imagine how much further along I'd be if I wasn't responding to nonsense about homologation on here... :)
-
Ok no worries. Can someone point out to me who Nathan S is, at the next event we might both be at. Then I can join the list of riders who want to help him see what is on the other side of the berm.
Kevin
That’s not really necessary, Nathan’s an alright bloke with good intentions for the sport and he can take a lot of shit in his stride. It’s just that most of us don’t see the Sexmax scenario as a threat. I guess if it ever happens he can start telling us “I told you so”
Most of us are aware that some of the wording in MoMs needs tweaking but the rules as they are enforced for Nats. are fine.
Changing a few words in the rules like OEM etc.to clarify them will stand a better chance of being excepted for change than changing the whole paragraph.
-
The SexMax is used to demonstrate that the Evo rules (despite the brilliance of their intent) actually fail to define the class the way we want it defined.
The SexMax was put up as a big, juicy target - something so offensive that everyone would want to shoot down.
Funny thing is, despite eighteen pages and plenty of different marksmen stepping up, nobody's managed to land a shot on it yet. The sense of frustration is clear - all the shots at me and the dredging up irrelevancies show this (google "cognitive dissonance" for one part of it).
Bwaaahaaaaahaaaaaa!!!!! OMG! You actually believe that don't you! :o Nathan, I wish you all the best, and I hope your new medication kicks in soon.
Panet Earth is a wonderful place, as I'm sure you'll notice if you ever diegn to visit! ::)
-
Nonsense, on so many levels that I can't even believe you said it.
It's irrelevant anyhow - if it makes you happier, imagine I employed GMC to build me a new frame, got brand new closed chamber forks and shock directly from Showa/Kayaba/WP/Marzocchi. New plastics from UFO. New PWK from Keihin. Etc. Making it a thoroughly modern 2013 Evo bike all the way.
The KTM-based example was used to demonstrate how it would be easily possible, and isn't purely out in the realm of hypothetical.
In theory that would be eligible, but you wouldn't get far...it doesn't have a motor. It's already done by maico only, except for maybe the forks.
The sex max isn't eligible if you remember you "manufactured" it from a 2013 ktm 300 exc which is a non compliant oem bike.
-
Funny thing is, despite eighteen pages and plenty of different marksmen stepping up, nobody's managed to land a shot on it yet. The sense of frustration is clear - all the shots at me and the dredging up irrelevancies show this (google "cognitive dissonance" for one part of it).
What a crock of pompous shit Nathan. You honestly believe that you're on another intelligence level from us don't you? People have been throwing common sense at you from the beginning but because of your inbuilt inability to accept anyone else's arguments you've dismissed it all as "cognitive dissonance" or irrelevancies . I think that only person suffering that disorder on here is you. You're making a total twat of yourself but you can't see it through the narcissistic haze ..............Faaaarrrk.
-
The whole point is that I want to make the rules better, for the good of the sport.
There's no obligation for the rewrite to be adopted. If its not a clear improvement, then I wouldn't want to see them adopted.
It's an opportunity to fix some actual problems and a truck load of potential problems.
So where's the bad point? Why the hysteria?
-
wow Go a way for 4 days and Shit
This is a Rule I have Used a Few Times
Please Read
12.1.0.3 in th Moms It has been in very Moms Over the larst 15 years
-
12.1.0.3 Everything that is not authorised and
prescribed in this chapter, or in the
discipline specific chapters, is strictly
prohibited.
Good god.
Using what's written, tell me how non-original tyres are allowed?
Etc x1000000
-
Ohoh... red flag to a bull time...
-
OK Nathan I'll help you get nineteen pages.
If you know how to change the rules please do so. Also don't tell us what you are going to put forward, just send it to MA. An individual can put a rule change forward, it doesn't have to come from a club or an SCB. Check out pages 40 and 41 of your MOMs.
I'll also send in a rule amendment. I bet my suggestion will get up before yours does. Also it won't go to the Commission before April or May next year for inclusion in the 2015 MOMs.
-
The whole point is that I want to make the rules better, for the good of the sport.
There's no obligation for the rewrite to be adopted. If its not a clear improvement, then I wouldn't want to see them adopted.
It's an opportunity to fix some actual problems and a truck load of potential problems.
So where's the bad point? Why the hysteria?
Seventeen pages (http://docs.cams.com.au/Manual/Rally/RR11_Group_3C-PRC_2013-3.pdf) down to seven. (http://www.ndscc.asn.au/web_images/AASA_Rally_Cars_-_Competition_Technical_Regulation.pdf)
-
here is a good questions why do moms rules change from year to year.like reviewed
2011 book lists all parts that can be used in pre65
2013 not there anymore.what you cant use them now??????
so if you start collecting stuff for your pre65 in 2011 its not finished yet mine isnt
can you use the same parts now
jim
-
19 pages omg
-
If your not switch on by now about bike eligibility you will never been, you may as well give up thinking about VMX and go fishing.
-
Congratulations enzo906 nineteen pages and counting, that must be a record for a first time post.
-
Funny thing is, despite eighteen pages and plenty of different marksmen stepping up, nobody's managed to land a shot on it yet. The sense of frustration is clear - all the shots at me and the dredging up irrelevancies show this (google "cognitive dissonance" for one part of it).
What a crock of pompous shit Nathan. You honestly believe that you're on another intelligence level from us don't you? People have been throwing common sense at you from the beginning but because of your inbuilt inability to accept anyone else's arguments you've dismissed it all as "cognitive dissonance" or irrelevancies . I think that only person suffering that disorder on here is you. You're making a total twat of yourself but you can't see it through the narcissistic haze ..............Faaaarrrk.
Here here
The thing is Nathan the forum persona and Nathan the person are completely different people. That is the danger of a Forum I guess and also the biggest thing against things like Facebook and all the other social media crap.
Nathan to be an OEM surely you need to have some form of manufacturing basis and actually sell bikes not just build a 'special' and call it whatever. Once you try to sell your creation you need to meet all requirements of a company/business and KTM may just have some input on the matter. Remember bikes like the WMW bikes from wyong a massive commitment for the shop. It is not about changing a couple of things and calling it a new name. I would think the intent of the rules could easily be used to over rule your position on your modified KTM if it ended up in court.
I will not debate it with you as I have learnt often enough not to augue with you as it is like having the vomits and diarrhea. You have two overwelming needs and desires but they totally conflict. As in do I sit on the crapper (put forward logical debate with Nathan and encourage him for 19 pages) or put my head in the crapper (try to ignore Nathan and then see 19 pages of circular rubbish).
All of this has absolutely positively no impact or affect on the rules it is just clutter.
-
I agree with Montynut.
Also if anyone has any doubt over the term OEM it is defined on page 42 of MOMs 1.1.0.22. So any bike that is manufactured from an existing bike is not eligible.
Is someone going to make a bike from scratch? I don't think so. Anyway the Father of the Evo class doesn't think so.
Kevin
-
I agree with Montynut.
Also if anyone has any doubt over the term OEM it is defined on page 42 of MOMs 1.1.0.22. So any bike that is manufactured from an existing bike is not eligible.
Is someone going to make a bike from scratch? I don't think so. Anyway the Father of the Evo class doesn't think so.
Kevin
Page 41, 1.1.0.22: "OEM" means Original Equipment Manufacturer.
That's all of it! ::)
There's a long history of "backyard" bikes that are made around other companies' equipment - an early GasGas is a KX-copy frame with a TM motor in it, and aftermarket forks & shock (etc).
Nobody says "GasGas is not the OEM"...
The SexMax would be very much in the same vein. If it made any difference, then I'd be happy to start fitting Beta motors to it, but the retail price has to go up to $39,990....
-
If it makes it clearer and stops the irrelevant discussion about commercial legalities, let's pretend someone built a new-design Evo bike, using top spec-2013 technology - and air/drums/PDS.
With reference to the 2013 MoMS, tell me how it isn't Evo legal?
It's not out of the question that someone will do this: you can buy 2013 built copies of 1981 Maicos, and they're not a bargain basement option.
Currently, Evo is NOT a historic class. It's open to bikes - and components- designed and/or made from 1885 to 2013.
To repeat myself for the 7,329th time: We agree on the basic intent. There's some disagreement on the details. The rules as written do not support even the broad intent. I believe that should be fixed.
-
I agree with Montynut.
Also if anyone has any doubt over the term OEM it is defined on page 42 of MOMs 1.1.0.22. So any bike that is manufactured from an existing bike is not eligible.
Is someone going to make a bike from scratch? I don't think so. Anyway the Father of the Evo class doesn't think so.
Kevin
Page 41, 1.1.0.22: "OEM" means Original Equipment Manufacturer.
That's all of it! ::)
There's a long history of "backyard" bikes that are made around other companies' equipment - an early GasGas is a KX-copy frame with a TM motor in it, and aftermarket forks & shock (etc).
Nobody says "GasGas is not the OEM"...
The SexMax would be very much in the same vein.
No it wouldn't. Those companies would have an agreement with the company they get the parts from and would get them direct from that manufacturer. They wouldn't buy the whole bike off a showroom floor.
The agreement would give them the right to call the bike theirs.
The same as Kawasaki and Suzuki had an agreement that had each of them re-badgeing different bikes as each others DRZ 400, KLX 400, KX65, RM65 etc.
-
While I disagree on the commercial stuff, its utterly irrelevant to what's in the MOMS, and what can be enforced at an event.
-
To repeat myself for the 7,329th time: We agree on the basic intent. There's some disagreement on the details. The rules as written do not support even the broad intent. I believe that should be fixed.
Can you fit that many posts into 19 pages?
If you believe that should be fixed, well f$#@ing fix it!!!!!!!!!!
-
Kev, save your brain cells for echo valley in 2 weeks
-
If it makes it clearer and stops the irrelevant discussion about commercial legalities, let's pretend someone built a new-design Evo bike, using top spec-2013 technology - and air/drums/PDS.
With reference to the 2013 MoMS, tell me how it isn't Evo legal?
It's not out of the question that someone will do this: you can buy 2013 built copies of 1981 Maicos, and they're not a bargain basement option.
Currently, Evo is NOT a historic class. It's open to bikes - and components- designed and/or made from 1885 to 2013.
To repeat myself for the 7,329th time: We agree on the basic intent. There's some disagreement on the details. The rules as written do not support even the broad intent. I believe that should be fixed.
Delusional.....
(Google it Nathan)
-
If it makes it clearer and stops the irrelevant discussion about commercial legalities, let's pretend someone built a new-design Evo bike, using top spec-2013 technology - and air/drums/PDS.
With reference to the 2013 MoMS, tell me how it isn't Evo legal?
Interesting. I saw sometimes ago a 67 or something CZ 250 which had brand new gold billet hubs which were exact copies of the originals, new forks tubes and many other items which were reproduced using todays tools. It looked like a 68 CZ but re made using todays technology.
-
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
-
Yup, and I've seen a YZ250A with New Shock Absorbers, Maier Plastics, a GMC pipe, and a JTR clutch cover.
-
This poor bugger just tried to convince Nathan that his delusional SexMax theory is bunkum. His actions speak for all of us.
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/banger_zps210f60b8.gif) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/banger_zps210f60b8.gif.html)
-
Guys you can stop, the answer was clearly outlined on page 3 or 4,
Someoene start a diversion on something else
I have my answer
thanks
-
Guys you can stop, the answer was clearly outlined on page 3 or 4,
Someoene start a diversion on something else
I have my answer
thanks
Your thread, your call !