OzVMX Forum
Marque Remarks => Honda => Topic started by: PB on June 19, 2014, 10:14:46 pm
-
I have a 79 CR250 recently restored for the intension of racing it. I am wanting to upgrade the Front End. I was hoping members could give me some suggestions of conversions they have done which have worked well. I was thinking 43mm 480 forks, has anyone done that conversion?
Does anyone have anything available to buy as mentioned above.
Any feedback appreciated.
Thanks
PB
-
I put a 1981 YZ465H fork & front wheel assembly in my 79 CR250,43mm forks with racetech emulators & springs to suit my weight,I used billet triples with a modified stem,You could use the YZ stem but I think the stem will need modifying, I used the yam front end because at the time that is what I deemed to be EVO legal but now I dunno what is :-\ So you might want to use the CR480 front end,both are 43mm & twin leader brakes,I don't know if the Honda clamps are a straight bolt in sorry,I have the Yam clamps & a spare frame if you want me to test fit,no probs :)
-
Smed, thanks for the feedback. Interesting conversation. I can keep my eyes open for CR or YZ. I also put the post on just by chance someone would have something lying around the shed suitable.
cheers
PB
-
I have the CR480 front end on my 79 CR. I think it is now race legal to have this front end. You will need to use the original CR250 stem pressed into the CR480 clamp.
-
It has always been race legal to have them but some are trying to change that.
PB, all you need to do is remove the centre tube from the 79 and put in in the 82/83 forks and you are away. No modifications needed (that's what makes them legal).
I run a set of 82 forks on my 79, they stiffen up the front but cause a bit more frame flex. I mainly did it for the looks.
Shane
-
Thanks Shane, thanks for the heads up. Now to find some forks and triple clamps. Did the 250 wheel fit the forks?
Cheers
Cameron
-
Yes Cameron, it is the easiest change to make, I am still running the standard front wheel and brake (single leading shoe).
On the early Honda stuff the centre shaft is held in via a clamp bolt so it easy to remove.
You can pick them up from ebay in the states from time to time. Make sure you ask them to remove the springs and compress the forks as this saves on shipping. I thing the last time I purchased a set it was around the 200 US + about a 100 freight. lot cheaper than trying to get a set of hard to find H model Yamaha forks and a lot easier to fit. 81 are only 41mm (still not to bad a fork) and 82 and 83 are 43mm.
Shane
-
I had a 79 model with a CR480 front complete with front wheel, but at that time it was illegal because it came from a bike with a linkage rear end, the only legal front at that time was a Yamaha one, but that may have changed now not sure....
-
pm sent PB
-
Popeye, that was what you were told but the rule has always been the same. It depends on how you read it.
Lets hope it stays that way as there has never been a concern from evo riders points of view.
Shane
-
I had a 79 model with a CR480 front complete with front wheel, but at that time it was illegal because it came from a bike with a linkage rear end, the only legal front at that time was a Yamaha one, but that may have changed now not sure....
That was my understanding of the rule as well. There have been many threads on here about the Showa 43mm front end on Evo class CR's and I can't ever recall one saying that the later Showa fork was allowed. As a matter of fact, most said that there was no way known that would allow it at a National level.
I think the rule(s) for Evo will be tweaked to allow the fork(s) from any drum braked bike to be used for next year??? Not sure if the proposed rule changes will be put into action though.
-
This is from the MA website current rule book.
16.15.12 Acceptable machines and components: Evolution Class Solo
16.15.12.1 Bikes will be OEM (original equipment manufacturer).
16.15.12.2 Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed.
16.15.12.3 All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured:
a) No linkage suspension,
b) No disk brakes,
c) Air cooled motors
Now i cant see how forks from a linkage Honda can be deemed legal.
Maybe i am reading it wrong i know they were going to drop the OME rule but they are still forks from a linkage bike .
Dont get me wrong here the whole fork saga with the vintage bikes is a joke IMO but i cant see how they would be deemed legal with the above wording. Yes they are from a bike with drum brakes and air cooled but with linkage rear but later equipment.
-
I'm with you two blokes, the way I read it, you cant take major components off a newer era bike, ie pre85. Also to me VMX is about era racing, keeping the bikes basically how they where raced back in the day. No one in 1979 or 1980 with a CR had 43mm forks off a 1983 model Honda.....they didn't exist period, how can we change history?.... You cant take major components off any other newer era and put them on an older era, I would hate to see EVO turned into a Frankenbike era like they do in the UK and those Dutch twinshocks. The commission have put there rule change through, it just has to be OKed by MA and then pre85 bikes will be sort after to be wrecked out for there wheels, brakes, forks etc to go on EVO bikes....totally wrong and to me not within the spirit of VMX. I like specials but this goes too far.
-
its all how you read it.
I have Yamaha J (1982) 43mm front end on my1984 510 husky. im using earlier model components on my evo bike. this was a cheap($150) upgrade from the 40mm husky forks and marginal front brake, to the yam TLS set up.
these were components from the time. cheap parts make for more bikes out there and more specials IMO. The front end and the back end are not related . its a technology based class. hence the 90 something DT175 is still legal.
We are all using updated shocks not related to the era (clickers etc) and new backing plates etc replace the fatigued magnesium items which are failing .
whats wrong with a little modern retro bling?, it makes the rider feel good and the fast guys still win regardless..
No bikes have been protested at national level in all years of evo racing.
the rules are working.
Anyway YAWN!!
-
99% of riders conform to the correct reading of the rules, your Husky is about the only twinshock bike that came out in 84 [they where behind the times....money troubles], what we are saying is that you cant take major components off the next era bikes.... pre85 [single shock, disc brakes, water cooling etc], if you want 43mm legal forks then buy 81 YZ465 forks, they are the only one, but as you said, you bought the later "cheaper" forks.[ you could spend big bucks on some legal 44mm Fox forks too] Once you let the forks and brakes in, then the better straight pull spoked wheels get in, the 83/84 air cooled 480/500 2 stroke Honda and Kawasaki motors get in [how's your 4 stroke husky going to go against them?....then the whinging starts again]....it just opens a hornets nest. You might be using earlier model components in your bike but they are off the next era [pre85], would you race your bike in pre85?.....just like you cant put 77 model forks on a 74 model bike or 95 model forks on a 88 model, you cant put linkage model forks on a twinshock bike.
-
Here we go again. This furore did a lot of damage leading up to the recent Post Classic Nats. We have lost a couple of valued and respected riders over this, and although I don't mix with a lot of Evo riders I know of four who didnt enter because of the fuss about this issue. Leading up to the Classic/Post Classic Qld titles I fielded several queries from Evo riders re this issue. When I assured them we would adhere to the official ruling (backed up by legal advise) and there would be no nonsence, they entered.
After 10 years of relatively peacefull competition, with no protests at National titles, it would seem the Evolution Rules have served the class well
I can't understand why this paticular bear has to be prodded yet again
-
That's simple Col, because it's not right. They [the cheaters] bring it back up, it doesn't happen in any other class so why bastardise EVO?....as they say, it's how YOU read the rules to suit your own agenda.
-
I don't want to turn this into another rule debate fiasco, but in an effort to make it crystal clear and remove any individual interpretation,
could the following
16.15.12.3 All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured
be changed to something along the lines of
16.15.12.3 All components will be of a machine originally manufactured as:
-
John my only agenda is that i can see a simple rule that has served us well continues to be a sourse of continuing agravation to the detriment of our sport. The use of the term "Cheaters"to describe those who have bikes that comply with the Evo rules but don't agree with your interpretation is unworthy. It is not the "cheaters" who keep bringing this up ( in fact if there are cheaters they would likely stay under the radar).
If you think someone is cheating you have the right to protest.
-
Perhaps the rules should be modified so there can only be one interpretation ;)
IE, Only motorcycles or parts can be used in any combination that are derived from air cooled,non disc brake,non linkage machines,No machines or parts modified or derived from machines with watercooling,disc brakes or linkage suspension will be eligible.
Or something like that :)
-
Or if we are swinging the other way.
Any aircooled motor,any drum brake font end is eligible ;)
-
Or.
No external modifications to fork, brakes or engine permitted,only stock original components off the original machine make & model to be used :)
Do any of those three options appeal?
Either open slather,sharing components between other EVO bikes or no mods :-\
-
smed you are beating an old drum ..... this has been done to death on an other thread.
-
smed you are beating an old drum ..... this has been done to death on an other thread.
Yeah I know,It's been chewed over like an old bone for ages & it will keep coming up till the rule wording is changed to be more clear ;)
-
Let them go Stewy.....they miss the swingarm thread
-
16.15.12.2 Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed.
16.15.12.3 All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured:
Well i must be illiterate if you can read this any other way please clarify ???
And for the matter of OME Yamaha forks are not OME to honda they could not be brought from Honda so not an OME Honda part
-
Marsh old mate, how they turn it around to suit there agenda is they say they don't have to "modify" anything.....they mix and match components off different models to make them fit.....I'm with you, to me it's black and white...you can't take major components off the next era, ie pre85 forks in a EVO bike, pre 85 bikes are linkage bla bla, ....ie later equipment.....doesn't matter if its still drum brake, it's later equipment.
-
Yes i,m with you Davey but we may as well bang our heads on the wall.
If a rule can be read differently by different people then it needs to be clarified.
Thats all im saying rules should be black and white and if they are not then this sort of argument will always come up.
-
It will be interesting to see what bikes pass at the upcoming Conondale Classic
-
The biggest problem with the rules is they aren't enforced across the board.
"it's only a Club Day" is the biggest load of bulls#$t I have ever heard. There is only one rule book. Until every rule is enforced at club level right through to National Championships this debate will keep coming up.
I have seen Yamaha's in EVO with the safety seat combo (seat and tank) from an 82 model. "It isn't an advantage" is the statement I get. The other one is they are OEM. In some peoples view if it is made by the same manufacturer (OEM) it should be legal.
My bike has a very hard clutch pull. It has a Magura lever assembly, so I should be able to fit a Magura Hydraulic clutch lever assembly. It would be OEM.
As for getting legal advice. Lawyers are smart, unless it is something totally ridiculous they will give you the opinion they think you want to hear.
And yes the GCRs in the MOMS do need up-dating and in some places simplifying.
-
The biggest problem with the rules is they aren't enforced across the board.
"it's only a Club Day" is the biggest load of bulls#$t I have ever heard. There is only one rule book. Until every rule is enforced at club level right through to National Championships this debate will keep coming up.
I have seen Yamaha's in EVO with the safety seat combo (seat and tank) from an 82 model. "It isn't an advantage" is the statement I get. The other one is they are OEM. In some peoples view if it is made by the same manufacturer (OEM) it should be legal.
My bike has a very hard clutch pull. It has a Magura lever assembly, so I should be able to fit a Magura Hydraulic clutch lever assembly. It would be OEM.
As for getting legal advice. Lawyers are smart, unless it is something totally ridiculous they will give you the opinion they think you want to hear.
And yes the GCRs in the MOMS do need up-dating and in some places simplifying.
Hallelujah to that :) I will have beer for you tonight Kev
I honestly believe that Australia has the most appropriate , era friendly , workable and common sense rules in the VMX world .
They could do with a little fine tuning to but as they are they are IMHO a 9 out of 10 .
The weakest link in the system is the human factor , on the competitors side its either misunderstanding or pushing their own agenda .
On the officials side it is either misunderstanding or a tendency to see as kev says "its only a club day" and they don't want to be the bad guy .
Your Moms is a great template for any organisation wanting to run VMX events, but the implementation of them seriously lacks continuity across events .
-
I'm with you, Bill and Kevin. I hear the OEM issue is being addressed. The legal adviser was given no opinion nor either sides' viewpoint, and gave his interpretation purely on the written rule. His view was sought purely in an attempt to put a cap on a rapidly escalating furore that was being detrimental to the lead up to the Post Classic Nats.
As long as there are individuals who will not accept the umpire's decision and keep gnawing away at it, the rule makers will never be able to close every possible gap. The question is, do we want another era based class or, as Evo originated, a technology based class to bridge between the Pre78 and Pre85. If we dont like it as it stands, lets keep all classes era based in which case may as well drop Evo, and go Pre80 and Pre85. Then stand back and listen to the screams.
The current rule, with a tweak or two along the way, has served the sport well for ten years and it is only a few people picking away at it that keeps this wound open.
As for "franken" bikes, Ive been racing MX off and on since 1963. My first racer, Ariel Comp Red Hunter 500 in home made frame, Norton forks. The hot ticket for years was Triumph engine, BSA frame and Gold Star or Norton forks. Enfield forks were often grafted onto all sorts of combinations. My "stockbike" for Speedway (1960s-70s equivilent to modern MX framed classes in dirt track) was Comp Matchless 500 in 1928 Triumph Tiger 80 frame, BSA Bantam forks, Matchless gearbox. We called them "bitzas". I only mention this to illustrate there is nothing new or scary about "frankenbikes"
-
Riddle me this then.
If these ( Pre 85 compliant fork ) components have ALWAYS been legal to use, why then do the vast majority believe that only the fork off a Evo compliant bike can be used?
-
Because somebody told somebody who tells somebody else. It's how urbane myths are born.
-
So we are to assume that this " urban myth " as you call it has gone totally unchecked by the powers that be, with no formal rebuttal of popular belief that only components from Evo legal bikes will comply. Because I sure as shit never got the memo when I was building my bikes.
It goes way further than somebody telling somebody else.
-
Agreed Ted one person interpretation of a rule is not on MA need to clarify if forks from a later bike or no evo bike are legal
-
It's not ONE persons interpretation, it's an accepted interpretation by many people over a long time. If you don't like it you have the right to protest and put it to the test. That no one in ten years has done so should tell you something. Anyway there's nothing new in all this forum talkfest so I'm out.
-
Maybe this is the conversion that will solve all problems.
You can use later forks if you put them on backwards ;D
(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NDgwWDY0MA==/z/en8AAOSwd4tTsjFe/$_12.JPG)
-
Ok, this is "as usual" getting out of hand.
Marshallmech, Ted and foremost John Tate if you fell so strong about this please ring me on 0412 996 771 and we can discuss (discuss not rant and rave) our differing views. If you ring me that means that you are truly concerned about it, if you don't then, well, it maybe that you just like ranting on here.
I do run my own business so please call after 4.00 PM today.
John, I do not like being call a cheat and as I am the only one that has spoken out on here about this (in this post) this time, I can only assume you are directing that at me. So you in particular I would like to discuss this with.
I ride vintage motocross for the fun of it. I do not go there to protest but to have a good time. I believe some of you think this is the world championships and life will end without it. well I am sorry but you are wrong. If it upsets people that much that I have these forks on my bike well ok I just won't ride it then as simple as that. I will be another evo rider that has chosen not to ride. Point of interest when I started in VMX 10 years ago and rode the first Conondale classic a few years later, we had that many evo 250's that we had to run 2 races for them (over 50 bikes), where are they all now???
For the sake of the forum and a bit of decorum lets finish this thread now.
Shane Wilson
-
Riddle me this then.
If these ( Pre 85 compliant fork ) components have ALWAYS been legal to use, why then do the vast majority believe that only the fork off a Evo compliant bike can be used?
Thats how i have always read the rule , forks must be from an evo compliant bike as thats how i interpret these rules.
16.15.12.2 Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed.
16.15.12.3 All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured:
However i also interpret these rules as meaning that the YZ H model forks would be illegall too as they are A from a 1981 model bike and 1981 is not in the period of the CR 250R ,RZ or RA 1978 , 79, 80 they are from 1981 . Also i dont believe that the Yamaha forks are a straight bolt in without modifing or changing the stem so 16.15.12.2 as it is written excludes them also.
The only big fork legal fitted to anything but a 1981 YZ in EVO would have to be FOX factory forks .
As far as i know the YZ H forks have been accepted since the introduction of the EVO rules ( but i dont understand why when the above rules clearly exclude them )
The later model Honda forks should not be legal under the above rules either .
As i said in my other post your MOMs are a 9 out of 10 but the above rules need rewording as one of the tweaks they need.
Im with Joan for keeping things period , in 1978 the 37mm Honda forks were OK by 1980 they were very average but thats part of the charm of riding a red bike . An RM 250C is an evo bike but is not a patch on and RM 250T , a YZ 250E is an EVO bike but again a 250H is a much better option .
-
Ok, this is "as usual" getting out of hand.
Marshallmech, Ted and foremost John Tate if you fell so strong about this please ring me on 0412 996 771 and we can discuss (discuss not rant and rave) our differing views. If you ring me that means that you are truly concerned about it, if you don't then, well, it maybe that you just like ranting on here.
I do run my own business so please call after 4.00 PM today.
John, I do not like being call a cheat and as I am the only one that has spoken out on here about this (in this post) this time, I can only assume you are directing that at me. So you in particular I would like to discuss this with.
I ride vintage motocross for the fun of it. I do not go there to protest but to have a good time. I believe some of you think this is the world championships and life will end without it. well I am sorry but you are wrong. If it upsets people that much that I have these forks on my bike well ok I just won't ride it then as simple as that. I will be another evo rider that has chosen not to ride. Point of interest when I started in VMX 10 years ago and rode the first Conondale classic a few years later, we had that many evo 250's that we had to run 2 races for them (over 50 bikes), where are they all now???
For the sake of the forum and a bit of decorum lets finish this thread now.
Shane Wilson
Yeah sure. I'll call you this arvo.
But before you get this thread closed and Col nicks off ( a trend that a few on here do when challenged ) can youse answer the question above that I asked. Why is this so secretive that only a few have ever only known about it
-
Ted I'm not nicking off because challenged, but simply because I've nothing else to contribuite to a topic. This is a.forum for opinions not personal attacks.
-
In 96 & 98 I built 79 and 80 CR250's using 43mm CR480 forks, in 2002 I built a 490 Maico using 43mm YZ400 forks. All bikes were raced up and down the east coast in the Evo class at big events and not a word was ever said.
Many other Evo bikes used the same and it was widely accepted as ok!
-
There is no secret Ted, just that some understand & some dont some agree and others wont and everything in between..
-
Vandy it's not that I don't understand or won't accept the ruling
It's about why only a certain few are aware
Surely 10 years ago the Author of the rules could have come out and quite simply said " hey guys, you don't have to just use EVO forks, you can also use Pre 85 forks , pre 85 air cooled motors etc" instead of making it public a couple of months ago, 10 years after the fact
Would have nipped it in the bud there and then
-
Surely 10 years ago the Author of the rules could have come out and quite simply said " hey guys, you don't have to just use EVO forks, you can also use Pre 85 forks , pre 85 air cooled motors etc" instead of making it public a couple of months ago, 10 years after the fact
Who was, or is, the Author & custodian of the EVO rules & where/when was this interpretation made public a couple of months ago? I would like to see the actual comments so I can read them first hand for myself please :)
-
Shane i do feel strongly about it that why i asked the question its not that hard really is it all that's needed is for it to be officially said they are or are not legal is that so hard.
And to Super this forum is a place for people to ask questions and to learn from others i asked a question because i read the rule one way others read it another way, I'm not saying anyone s cheating i simply wanted some clarification on the rule because as shown on here a rule should not be able to be interpreted by the way it is read it needs to be plain and simple and understandable to one and all if it was all this discussion would not be here and we could do as the rule says.
As for people not attending the Evo class could be because of this reason so many believe you have to use forks from an evo bike and other say you don't and so wants to go to a title when unsure of how the way the rules read.
And just a footnote jim elis, tommy croft, marty smith all ran the production forks on there works bikes in the stadium races back in the day only jim pomeroy ran the works forks so could they be that bad when the best guys had access to works parts and for that matter the best parts money could by and they ran the production forks makes you wonder what all the fuss is about !!!!!
-
Oh and one more thing a few years ago a guy riding in the pre78 125 class on a Suzuki he was protested because he had the top triple clamp from a 1 year later bike i gather it was from a evo class bike the protest was upheld and he lost his 3rd position if i recall all because the top[ triple had rubber bar mounts and wasn't from a pre 78 bike where is the difference if i used pre 85 forks on my evo bike the triples are later stuff and going by the above example it would be illegal.
As i said it needs to be black and white not able to be read in different ways.
And this is IMO why people stay away its allot of time and expense to get to a title meeting and not knowing if your bike is right from a few peoples interpretation of the rules compared to some others is a big deterrent. Just my thoughts now I,m off to get my bikes ready for a Viper meeting. Hopefully with this discussion some firm official judgment of the rule will come.
-
Oh and one more thing a few years ago a guy riding in the pre78 125 class on a Suzuki he was protested because he had the top triple clamp from a 1 year later bike i gather it was from a evo class bike the protest was upheld and he lost his 3rd position if i recall all because the top[ triple had rubber bar mounts and wasn't from a pre 78 bike where is the difference if i used pre 85 forks on my evo bike the triples are later stuff and going by the above example it would be illegal.
As i said it needs to be black and white not able to be read in different ways.
And this is IMO why people stay away its allot of time and expense to get to a title meeting and not knowing if your bike is right from a few peoples interpretation of the rules compared to some others is a big deterrent. Just my thoughts now I,m off to get my bikes ready for a Viper meeting. Hopefully with this discussion some firm official judgment of the rule will come.
This old chestnut gets dragged up occasionally just like the CZ riveted hub scenario ::) To clarify that protested bike was running 78 model forks with longer travel than the 77 forks not just a top clamp and a Thor arm with longer shocks there were also 2 C model 125s running in the class with alloy B tanks that were also protested. I raced that class at that Nats but withdrew to concentrate on other classes as I could see the shit was gonna hit the fan .
He had raced at previous nats I remember the bike at the Coffs nats where I raced against it . The owner is a nice bloke and it sucked what went down and the protester took no pleasure in protesting that and the other 2 thinly disguised 78 C models with alloy B tanks .
That should have all been cleared up years before as it had been pointed out to officials , but the std reply was if you think its wrong put up your money and protest it .
This is where the system falls down IMHO , some officials are happy to wear the big hat but don't want to tackle head on what can be an ugly situation when a bike is challenged. I think this is slowly improving but those 3 bikes had run at a number of events I had raced at in pre 78 without challenge so it becomes accepted that they are legal until someone puts up the money ::)
-
"This is where the system falls down IMHO , some officials are happy to wear the big hat but don't want to tackle head on what can be an ugly situation when a bike is challenged. I think this is slowly improving but those 3 bikes had run at a number of events I had raced at in pre 78 without challenge so it becomes accepted that they are legal until someone puts up the money ::)"
Exactly Bill. It all comes down to who wants to pay the money to protest.
Just as a matter of course.....I have a CR250RZ with 43mm Showas on it. That is how I chose to build my interpretation of a RC replica. Does it make me any faster? I doubt it. Why did I do it? Because knowing the Yamaha TLS front end had been deemed legal and some CR guys run them, I wanted my Honda to be all Honda, even though the OEM Showa fork wasn't available in 1979. Neither was the TLS Yamaha fork. Nothing more, nothing less.
As far as I see it, there is no technological advantage of the Showa fork over the Kayaba. I would of loved to afford a set of 40mm Fox Factory Forks (which are legal) but I had to draw the financial line somewhere.
Then knowing that my chosen front end was (is) illegal for the Evolution class, I chose not to A; alter my bike to be legal, And B; to leave my CR as a shed queen, start it up every now and then and just look at it.
Rules are rules and I do my best to abide by them when it comes to VMX. I had my say when Nathan S asked for help from those interested in proposing a set of rule "tweaks" for next year. What comes of the rule change proposal is anybodies guess but I say, if the Yamaha fork continues to be legal on CR's, then I see no reason why the Showa 43mm fork shouldn't be deemed legal. It is, afterall, only being deemed Illegal purely because of date of manufacture, not because of any technological advantage!
Hopefully there will be some clarification with any rule change(s), but until then, my CR will stay unused. Shame really, because it is one very sweet looking ride.....
-
Doesnt really effect me as my only evo bike is 100% original but seems logical that if these changes are deemed incorrect (dont like the term illegal, sounds a bit too serious for old guys on old bikes), then there are 2 options:
1) replace the later model added component/s for racing at all levels with the original ones, or lower if unavailable (e.g. go back a year or more)
2) keep the modified bike as is with the later model added component/s if you so choose and race pre-85
seems to be a common theme that these modifications are not there to improve bike or rider performance etc etc so why do it?
-
Doesnt really effect me as my only evo bike is 100% original but seems logical that if these changes are deemed incorrect (dont like the term illegal, sounds a bit too serious for old guys on old bikes), then there are 2 options:
1) replace the later model added component/s for racing at all levels with the original ones, or lower if unavailable (e.g. go back a year or more)
2) keep the modified bike as is with the later model added component/s if you so choose and race pre-85
seems to be a common theme that these modifications are not there to improve bike or rider performance etc etc so why do it?
I did it because that's how I wanted to build MY bike. I didn't build it with the intention of racing but then I started to get the itch to fire it in anger.....Yes, I could change the front end to meet the criteria for Evo BUT I chose not to as it is the only Post Classic bike I have at the moment and I can't see myself spending all the time, effort and money to get 6 races out of 1 bike for a "title" meeting. If my club lets me ride it as it is, I will get it dirty eventually ;D
-
"This is where the system falls down IMHO , some officials are happy to wear the big hat but don't want to tackle head on what can be an ugly situation when a bike is challenged. I think this is slowly improving but those 3 bikes had run at a number of events I had raced at in pre 78 without challenge so it becomes accepted that they are legal until someone puts up the money ::)"
Exactly Bill. It all comes down to who wants to pay the money to protest.
Just as a matter of course.....I have a CR250RZ with 43mm Showas on it. That is how I chose to build my interpretation of a RC replica. Does it make me any faster? I doubt it. Why did I do it? Because knowing the Yamaha TLS front end had been deemed legal and some CR guys run them, I wanted my Honda to be all Honda, even though the OEM Showa fork wasn't available in 1979. Neither was the TLS Yamaha fork. Nothing more, nothing less.
As far as I see it, there is no technological advantage of the Showa fork over the Kayaba. I would of loved to afford a set of 40mm Fox Factory Forks (which are legal) but I had to draw the financial line somewhere.
Then knowing that my chosen front end was (is) illegal for the Evolution class, I chose not to A; alter my bike to be legal, And B; to leave my CR as a shed queen, start it up every now and then and just look at it.
Rules are rules and I do my best to abide by them when it comes to VMX. I had my say when Nathan S asked for help from those interested in proposing a set of rule "tweaks" for next year. What comes of the rule change proposal is anybodies guess but I say, if the Yamaha fork continues to be legal on CR's, then I see no reason why the Showa 43mm fork shouldn't be deemed legal. It is, afterall, only being deemed Illegal purely because of date of manufacture, not because of any technological advantage!
Hopefully there will be some clarification with any rule change(s), but until then, my CR will stay unused. Shame really, because it is one very sweet looking ride.....
TBM old mate you will have to leave the forum as that is just way to logical thinking for one here.
-
maybe next year`s rules http://www.ma.org.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Documents/MOMS/2014_MoMS_Files/Minutes_-_May/2015_Ch_16_CMX_CDT_proposed_changes_in_RED.pdf go to evolution class page 12
-
maybe next year`s rules http://www.ma.org.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Documents/MOMS/2014_MoMS_Files/Minutes_-_May/2015_Ch_16_CMX_CDT_proposed_changes_in_RED.pdf go to evolution class page 12
So reading that it would imply that any drum brake front end would be ok, on the basis that any disc brake front end would have to have the forks modified or any of those abhorrent twinshock conversions. Any carby in ok?
And I sold my 82 YZ490 fork recently thinking they wouldn't be legal >:(
-
I read the proposed rule and I'm even more confused. Good to get rid of the OEM bit but still not clear. Does it mean that any drum brake, any air cooled engine and any twinshock frame. Sound like a bit of a free for all.
Had better sell my 81 Maico before it becomes obsolete with all it's stock parts.
-
Do you guys realise what can happen when the letters OEM are removed from the rule book?
Once it is removed who would bother with 43mm damper rod forks when you would be well within your rights to instruct your suspension supplier to supply you with a current 48mm upside down cartridge fork with fittings to adapt to your backing plate. And you wouldn't have to do that either. You could get a machinist to make you a new twin shoed brake hub to fit your new 48mm fork.
You are not converting anything to fit, you are making / buying new parts.
The author has stated Evo has no era or period ( even though when he wrote the rules he said period flat slide carburettors can be used ) so making / buying new parts has to be allowed.
As there is no era or period for Evo, once OEM is removed from the rules it is open slather to build bikes even the factories wouldn't / couldn't have built back when these bikes were new.
Hardly vintage moto cross.
-
An era or period is defined in this case by a technology piont. Which would be the H for Yamaha and whatever year the TS ended for others. It would be simple enough to say that all parts must have come from an EVO bike or been available for an EVO bike. That of course would kill off the J Yam forks and brake and anyother hybrid using parts from later technology bikes.
If the majority of EVO riders want a free for all (or the opposite) then the rules should reflect that but unfortunaley the wheels of power turn in a mysterious way.
Perhaps a genuine pole should be undertaken of all the EVO rider and not just the vocal minority.
-
this is really interesting in that we hear it quite a lot that we're "over regulated"
yet here is a simple set of guidelines that allows us a few freedoms (in the shed and wallet to build something a bit out of the ordinary and then we get to go and have some fun with it) and there's still a few screams from the balcony "we want more regulation"
the rule books always change from time to time, some get it easier and some have to adjust.
evo is a pretty good thing i reckon
-
Evo is a great thing as we know it.
If you want to build a hot rod whatever I'm sure your local MX club will let you ride
Mick, using major components manufactured tomorrow is not vintage moto cross.
-
Mick, using major components manufactured tomorrow is not vintage moto cross.
Evo is post classic Ted
lets keep the fun in it
-
Ted you are a smart guy and you love your ,bikes, so rather than critcising the system and the rules, harping on and on about things you don't agree with, and denigrating volunteer officials , why don't you do something positive.
If you can see ways to better our sport, why not work with the system and try to improve it instead of knocking it.
There is a protocol in place to make submissions and this forum is not it.
Bagging volunteers who work hard for our sport, calling fellow riders "cheats" who don't agree with your point of view and revving everyone up isn't the way to improve things and encourage people to stay in or join our sport. And before you jump on it, I am not infering you called anyone a cheat. It has been said on this thread and illustrates just how inflamatory these things become.
-
Boys it simple: Buy a Yamaha!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
There was a poll on here for those were interested in tweaking the rules. Nathan S instigated a thread just for the purpose and called on everyone to read and make submissions to him so he could draft a proposed set of rule changes/tweaks.
Obviously a submission has been entered to MA and now that people see it actually happening, they want to complain some more. Why? There was ample opportunity to register your ideas beforehand.
-
I don't want to be rude but the previous rules for EVO where rather poorly written and open to very different interpretations. The proposed new ones aren't much better and I'd like to hear from the author as to the intended meaning.
As for poles on forum, they never give a true representation of what the majority of riders want only what the most vocal Forum goers want.
-
There was a poll on here for those were interested in tweaking the rules. Nathan S instigated a thread just for the purpose and called on everyone to read and make submissions to him so he could draft a proposed set of rule changes/tweaks.
Obviously a submission has been entered to MA and now that people see it actually happening, they want to complain some more. Why? There was ample opportunity to register your ideas beforehand.
I'm not sure if Nathan did submit anything to MA (to be submitted to the commission) before the due date, but I didn't see his name mentioned in the minutes. Nathan tends to over complicate things when he tries to write rules (and posts). If you want to see something different to what was in the MOMS but not what has been proposed. Respond to MA =13396&tx_ttnews[backPid]=6&cHash=dc276bfe71]http://www.ma.org.au/index.php?id=12&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=13396&tx_ttnews[backPid]=6&cHash=dc276bfe71 (http://www.ma.org.au/index.php?id=12&tx_ttnews[tt_news) The final decision will be made by the MA Board. There is a new CEO and President and some new Board members.
IMO EVO should be what it was originally using Rick Doughty's (Vintage Iron) rules Evolution 125, 250 and 500
1975 and later machines, originally built with air cooled engines, drum brakes and no linkage suspension. Note: Yamaha monoshock models are eligible up to 1981.
Also I recall a rule saying components must come from EVO eligible bikes etc.
It may now be too late to go back to this. Because there is a lot of bikes out there that have not got everything on them, that I will call "within the spirit of the class". Having said this I'm sure the majority of us don't want to see the class deteriorate into what happens in the UK and Holland. They use later model bikes and do what is needed to make them comply. eg fit drum brakes to disc brake bikes, fit air-cooled engines to water cooled bikes, change single shock to twin shock etc. Or adapt drum brakes to modern forks.
The EVO class was first run in Australia at the Thumper Nats in the 90s using Rick's rules a long time before the class appeared in the MA rule book.
I remember asking Hans Applegren to change from Twin Shock to EVO so the Yamaha's could be used.
Anyway EVO is a Vintage class and it should stay that way.
Kevin
-
OK here are the facts.
1. The Evolution class first appeared in the MA rule book (MOMS) in 2004.
The rules then were:-
14.2.15.2 RULES OF THE CLASS
14.2.15.3. Bikes will be OEM. Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed.
All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured.
a) No linkage suspension
b) No Disc brakes
c) Air cooled motors
14.2.15.4. Capacities.
a) Solo 125cc
b) Solo 250cc
c) Solo 263 and over.
/b]
Please note the sentence "All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured."
To me this means if the bike is a 1981 model that is the year all components should come from and maybe before that year. So EVO does have a period. It is the year the bike was manufactured.
In the 2006 MOMS there was a sentence saying No age groups classes will be run. Why I don't know!!!
In the 2012 MOMS several other rules were added that were added to all classes. The thing that stands out is the sentence "All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured." is still there.
So in my opinion adapting components from a later model bike even if it is only a year older is not within the rules as written or more important the spirit of the class.
It may now be too late to go back from what people using their interpretation of the rules have made the class.
What we need to make sure doesn't occur is that the classes do not become a frakenbike class.
Kevin
-
Below is the wording the commission wants to change the rules too
The wording in red with strike out will be removed.
The wording in red is the new wording.
16.15.12 Acceptable machines and components: Evolution Class Solo
16.15.12.1 Bikes will be OEM (original equipment manufacturer).
16.15.12.2 Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed.
16.15.12.3 All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured The machine will have:
a) No linkage suspension,
b) No disk brakes,
c) Air cooled motors.
16.15.12.4 Carburettors; period flat slide carburettors and any round slide carburettor may be used.
Kevin M
-
I find it funny that the Husky, Maico and Yamaha owners are not bleating about change to suspension.
Must be just a Honda thing.
-
Firstly, all PB was wanting was some leads on a 43mm front end for his bike, not sure he got any but he did get another shouting match about EVO rules.
Secondly, you don't need to modify an EVO Husky, just ride them! Some even have 35mm forks, OMFG!
K
-
I haven't been shouting. I haven't even increased the font size or had the text scrolling across the page. I have just stated the facts.
IMO
Kevin
-
As for poles on forum, they never give a true representation of what the majority of riders want only what the most vocal Forum goers want.
Exactly! The majority of real racers don't waste their time with the dribble on here!!
-
IMO EVO should be what it was originally using Rick Doughty's (Vintage Iron) rules Evolution 125, 250 and 500
1975 and later machines, originally built with air cooled engines, drum brakes and no linkage suspension. Note: Yamaha monoshock models are eligible up to 1981.
Also I recall a rule saying components must come from EVO eligible bikes etc.
It may now be too late to go back to this. Because there is a lot of bikes out there that have not got everything on them, that I will call "within the spirit of the class". Having said this I'm sure the majority of us don't want to see the class deteriorate into what happens in the UK and Holland. They use later model bikes and do what is needed to make them comply. eg fit drum brakes to disc brake bikes, fit air-cooled engines to water cooled bikes, change single shock to twin shock etc. Or adapt drum brakes to modern forks.
The EVO class was first run in Australia at the Thumper Nats in the 90s using Rick's rules a long time before the class appeared in the MA rule book.
I remember asking Hans Applegren to change from Twin Shock to EVO so the Yamaha's could be used.
Anyway EVO is a Vintage class and it should stay that way.
Kevin
[/
I agree with you Kev this is the way it should be IMO
-
Kevin were the Evo rules not in the rulebook prior to 2004?
I started racing Evo in the Thumper Nats in '96 with Rick Doughty's US rules.
-
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/301229058534?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649
check this one out! Cool!
-
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/301229058534?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649
check this one out! Cool!
I think that's Bruce Magoo's old bike that Shane owned for a while.
That's a KLP swingarm not Fox like the seller thinks..
-
Kevin were the Evo rules not in the rulebook prior to 2004?
I started racing Evo in the Thumper Nats in '96 with Rick Doughty's US rules.
John
At present I have only checked back to the 2004 rule book. In this book (2004 MOMS) the rules for the EVO classes are in BOLD print. This is what is done to indicate a new or changed rule. If a rule is changed it is done using strike out So using that I believe the rules for EVO have only been in the MA rule book since 2004.
Also yes the class was run at the Thumper Nats from the mid nineties and we ran it for a year in the Shell Advance/Sunshine State MX series, before I invented the ThunderX series. I even remember one time I had a question about the eligibility of a bike. So I emailed Rick Doughty. I considered him the Father of the class (and still do). Rick replied to my email confirming as I thought the bike wasn't eligible.
Anyway as you can see the class doesn't really belong to MA, it was being run for at least ten or more years before MA decided to recognise the class.
Also for the record Rick is a Maico man.
Kevin
-
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/301229058534?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649
check this one out! Cool!
OMG its got uprated later model shocks that weren't available in 1979, does that mean we should ban this bike to,or is it only the forks we're worried about, maybe that frame colour ant legal either :o
-
No IMO the shocks are fine. Only the forks and possibly the swingarm are questionable. Also the plate colour doesn't comply.
And yes I know you are being sarcastic, but I'm not.
-
No John that is not the bike I had. Bruce had done one (completed) before he started the one I bought of Rob. This one has different shocks, foot pegs and wheel rims (the bike I had, had silver rims). Is very close in appearance.
I do not recall seeing this bike in Queensland. I did not go to CD this year so could not tell if it was there.
I am with Kevin about the swing arm, I do not know if it is a direct copy of an arm from the day (and in my view it would have to be) but you maybe able to answer this.
This is a good bench mark to look at though as it is a well presented bike that to most people would be Evo legal (and bar the swing arm and no colour back rounds would be under current rules) and does not take away from the general look of a standard 79 CR and evo bikes in general as others are concerned about. The forks on this bike also are 82 480 or 83 250 as the 83 480 had the rubber mounted handle bars that would make them (again in my eye) not legal as they differ from the standard top clamp.
As TBM said in an earlier post the forks give it no technical advantage over the H model Yamaha forks.
Shane
-
No IMO the shocks are fine. Only the forks and possibly the swingarm are questionable. Also the plate colour doesn't comply.
And yes I know you are being sarcastic, but I'm not.
Soo shocks that are brand new made in 2014 are fine but god help you if you use a conventional set of forks that may be a couple of years newer than stock.
How does that work. Let it go.
-
While that Honda may appear to be legal, it is not with them forks fitted. You claim they are only put on for aesthetics and not a technical advantage. Bullshit. While they may not offer an advantage over a Yamaha 43mm fork they are streets ahead of the legal forks that the bike was manufactured ( OEM ) with.
The bike below also has 43mm forks. This bike is completely legal because the forks are off a air cooled, drum braked, non linkage bike.
This whole fork bullshit is being generated by some guys who just plainly bought the wrong bike for the class and are trying to play catch up by converting later model equipment. Nothing more. Nothing less
(http://i582.photobucket.com/albums/ss270/ted84photos/002-3.jpg) (http://s582.photobucket.com/user/ted84photos/media/002-3.jpg.html)
-
There it is in a nutshell. Yep, you can use shocks built yesterday with modern components & 60 clicks of rebound & compression adjustment but you can't use a 30+ year old set of forks from a bike that was produced with a linkage rear end. Makes no sense in the real world, but I guess this isn't the real world. Shocks are classed as consumables, but forks aren't coz they don't wear out apparently.
K
-
While that Honda may appear to be legal, it is not with them forks fitted. You claim they are only put on for aesthetics and not a technical advantage. Bullshit. While they may not offer an advantage over a Yamaha 43mm fork they are streets ahead of the legal forks that the bike was manufactured ( OEM ) with.
The bike below also has 43mm forks. This bike is completely legal because the forks are off a air cooled, drum braked, non linkage bike.
This whole fork bullshit is being generated by some guys who just plainly bought the wrong bike for the class and are trying to play catch up by converting later model equipment. Nothing more. Nothing less
(http://i582.photobucket.com/albums/ss270/ted84photos/002-3.jpg) (http://s582.photobucket.com/user/ted84photos/media/002-3.jpg.html)
Ted I have got to say it you are one of the people that just don't get it and never will.
(http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae277/stw996/Picture018.jpg) (http://s979.photobucket.com/user/stw996/media/Picture018.jpg.html)
Gee I also run an 82 front fender Should I be strung up for that as well???
-
There it is in a nutshell. Yep, you can use shocks built yesterday with modern components & 60 clicks of rebound & compression adjustment but you can't use a 30+ year old set of forks from a bike that was produced with a linkage rear end. Makes no sense in the real world, but I guess this isn't the real world. Shocks are classed as consumables, but forks aren't coz they don't wear out apparently.
K
That is a ridiculous response.
So the guy with a Pre 65 can use a modern fork because his era fork is hard to find or expensive.
Shane,
I get it and believe me I'm not the only one.
Do you care to mention on here who told you your Pre 85 forks are legal and exactly what official position he held when he told you?
-
Shane,
I get it and believe me I'm not the only one.
Do you care to mention on here who told you your Pre 85 forks are legal and exactly what official position he held when he told you?
Ted my Evo bikes went through scrutineering at many major meetings from 1996-2013 with 1983 43mm forks in them and no one ever said anything about them and the same goes for several other riders and Dave Tanner has said all along that they are LEGAL and he wrote the farkin rules so who's in the wrong here?!!
As for people on here calling others cheats for using said forks that have always passed scrutineering, Pull Your Heads In!
I'm sick of this BULLSHIT on here from all the know it alls, it's not solving anything!!
-
So if you can use a fork from a non Evo bike where is the line drawn as to what fork can be used?
And how is it written in the rule book to determine the cut off point.
-
Does that YZ have a Flat Slide carb? Magnum or Lectron perhaps?
-
There it is in a nutshell. Yep, you can use shocks built yesterday with modern components & 60 clicks of rebound & compression adjustment but you can't use a 30+ year old set of forks from a bike that was produced with a linkage rear end. Makes no sense in the real world, but I guess this isn't the real world. Shocks are classed as consumables, but forks aren't coz they don't wear out apparently.
K
That is a ridiculous response.
So the guy with a Pre 65 can use a modern fork because his era fork is hard to find or expensive.
Shane,
I get it and believe me I'm not the only one.
Do you care to mention on here who told you your Pre 85 forks are legal and exactly what official position he held when he told you?
Ted that is a very good way of putting the point across :) I suppose all the other classes have a year cut off witch make more sense.
In pre 75 I could race say a 1970 B50 with std BSA frame ( which is arguably the worst bike in that era ) but fit the front end out of a 1975 YZ360B (1975 but considered a flow on ) and brand new custom built Rieger or Ohlins shocks ( as can anybody in any class I believe ).
In the motor I can buy brand new ( Manufactured yesterday) billet crank , con rod etc, brand new high comp piston ,brand new multi plate billet clutch, uprated brand new 3 speed gearbox, have the head internally modified flowed and bigger valves, brand new Dellorto or Mikuni round slide big carb and billet custom manifold , new big bore exhaust, brand new high voltage ignition system and have the whole thing built and tuned by McLaren or Cosworth if I am prepared to pay and be legal as I am within the rules . I will leave off the brand new CCM clutch and timing covers as they alter the appearance of the motor .
I neither support or oppose this scenario as its in the rules and seems to work . The key thing is that the cut off is a year 1974 ( with some flow ons ie the 75 YZ forks ) I cannot fit forks from a 1975 RM 125S , or a 1975 CCM GP , or any other parts from 1975 , 76, 77 etc bikes as the class is pre 75 .
I can see both sides of the argument and the way the Evo rules are written I would say you would have a 50/50 chance if it went before a judge and jury re fitting later Linkage Honda forks.
I personally think that Evo bikes should be fitted with only forks from twinshock or Yamahop bikes .
Shocks are totally different ( but where do you draw the line ) same with emulators etc , I don't agree with fitting them but whos gonna check if they are ruled out .
-
Ok, if they have always been legal why the proposed changes to the wording in the MoMS?
If they have always been legal why were we shocked when he announced it just prior to the last Nats?
You as well as I know lots of things don't get protested because of the angst towards the protester if he does so
-
While that Honda may appear to be legal, it is not with them forks fitted. You claim they are only put on for aesthetics and not a technical advantage. Bullshit. While they may not offer an advantage over a Yamaha 43mm fork they are streets ahead of the legal forks that the bike was manufactured ( OEM ) with.
The bike below also has 43mm forks. This bike is completely legal because the forks are off a air cooled, drum braked, non linkage bike.
This whole fork bullshit is being generated by some guys who just plainly bought the wrong bike for the class and are trying to play catch up by converting later model equipment. Nothing more. Nothing less
Can't say I see your point Ted.....
While the 43mm Showa fork IS much better than the stock 37mm units on the RZ's, they aren't any better then the Kayaba fork. Yet, and this is my real bug bear, I can be within the rules and fit the Kayaba fork on my CR, BUT for no reason other than the Showa fork being from a linkage bike, I can't use them even though they are still a drum brake set up with absolutely no technical advantage over the Kayaba fork. Makes no sense that I can fit a Yamaha front end on my Honda.....Now to me, that is more of a so called Frankenbike.
Some guys don't just buy a bike Ted...some of us actually build our own bikes from parts and RESCUE another near dead bike. Not all of us can afford (or want) to get some guru to build a bike for us Ted.
I have chosen not to upset the apple cart by riding my bike at any event until this whole debacle is sorted out one way or another. I like my bike the way I have built it and would prefer to leave it as it is. Then again, I probably never will get to ride it in anger seeing as I have a replica RC swing arm on the bike as well, even though there are loads of bikes running after market swing arms that are made today.
-
This is my only post on this thread so the usual posters that rip me after just about every post need not bother on this occasion.
I think everyone realises that the difference between an '81 43mm Yamaha front end and an '82 is academic. The 43mm Honda front end from ’82 is also very similar and possibly academic.
Unfortunately the front forks are the thin edge of the wedge so to speak. What happens when someone shows up with a CR250 ’80 model with an ‘84 CR500 or '99 XR600 engine or an RM250T frame with an RM500 engine? A C&J Honda replica frame with a ’99 XR600 engine.
The engine has not been modified in any case maybe the frame has but that is perfectly OK under the proposed rules otherwise every one of those 4T specials or engine swap bikes out there are illegal.
-
This is my only post on this thread so the usual posters that rip me after just about every post need not bother on this occasion.
I think everyone realises that the difference between an '81 43mm Yamaha front end and an '82 is academic. The 43mm Honda front end from ’82 is also very similar and possibly academic.
Unfortunately the front forks are the thin edge of the wedge so to speak. What happens when someone shows up with a CR250 ’80 model with an ‘84 CR500 or '99 XR600 engine or an RM250T frame with an RM500 engine? A C&J Honda replica frame with a ’99 XR600 engine.
The engine has not been modified in any case maybe the frame has but that is perfectly OK under the proposed rules otherwise every one of those 4T specials or engine swap bikes out there are illegal.
Heaven VMX I agree with what you are saying.
Also please note despite what many think EVO does have a period.
Below is the current rule
14.2.15.3. Bikes will be OEM. Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed.
All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured.
a) No linkage suspension
b) No Disc brakes
c) Air cooled motors
so please note the wording
"All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured." so really the components for each bike should come from the year that bike was manufactured. So the forks for a 1978 to 1980 CR should come off a bike from that year. Also a Husqvarna 500 is the only bike that should be able to run a flat slide carby off an RM465 83 or 84 model.
Clearly this is not totally workable. That wording should also mean that everything including motor parts (pistons & rings) controls etc should come from the period the bike was manufactured.
With regards using new shocks etc particularly for EVO any shocks you can buy new (now) are not radically different from what was available back in the day. For the older classes although not written anywhere you can not use externally adjustable shocks for Pre 78 and there are other restrictions for older classes.
The machines in all Classic/Vintage forms of Motorsport are now mechanically better than they were back when new.
There also needs to be a rule permitting replica parts. Right now there isn't one. One example is magnesium hubs and brake backing plates become fragile with time. You should be able to remake them and if needed improve them for safety. There are examples of this but I'm not going to open that up here. Any replica parts maybe should be submitted to MA of approval.
I have my own opinion as to why the rules are being changed now. I won't express it here.
Kevin
-
While that Honda may appear to be legal, it is not with them forks fitted. You claim they are only put on for aesthetics and not a technical advantage. Bullshit. While they may not offer an advantage over a Yamaha 43mm fork they are streets ahead of the legal forks that the bike was manufactured ( OEM ) with.
The bike below also has 43mm forks. This bike is completely legal because the forks are off a air cooled, drum braked, non linkage bike.
This whole fork bullshit is being generated by some guys who just plainly bought the wrong bike for the class and are trying to play catch up by converting later model equipment. Nothing more. Nothing less
Can't say I see your point Ted.....
While the 43mm Showa fork IS much better than the stock 37mm units on the RZ's, they aren't any better then the Kayaba fork. Yet, and this is my real bug bear, I can be within the rules and fit the Kayaba fork on my CR, BUT for no reason other than the Showa fork being from a linkage bike, I can't use them even though they are still a drum brake set up with absolutely no technical advantage over the Kayaba fork. Makes no sense that I can fit a Yamaha front end on my Honda.....Now to me, that is more of a so called Frankenbike.
Some guys don't just buy a bike Ted...some of us actually build our own bikes from parts and RESCUE another near dead bike. Not all of us can afford (or want) to get some guru to build a bike for us Ted.
I have chosen not to upset the apple cart by riding my bike at any event until this whole debacle is sorted out one way or another. I like my bike the way I have built it and would prefer to leave it as it is. Then again, I probably never will get to ride it in anger seeing as I have a replica RC swing arm on the bike as well, even though there are loads of bikes running after market swing arms that are made today.
So you build your own bikes with metal sourced from the mill do you. Apart from the wrong selection of fork it seems you've done an admirable job. Well done
-
I usually choose not to read threads as such, because of their pukability.
A clear inarguable line seems way overdue. All the classes need to be separated by a clear and defining boundary.
There should be a clear point when a modified bike crosses that line into next class. One class or the other. Or may as well just merge the lot and be done with it.
Boundaries that are no longer open to blurring by the use of semantics to push ambiguities of single words taken out of context. Comprehendable to anyone and all.
Seeming impossible to please everyone at the moment.
I really admire your effort and intent to draw this line of clarity Kevin. Regardless on what it is and where the dust settles, thank you for your undying efforts.
The sooner this thorn is done, dusted and clear to all, the better for all.
Then if an individual don't like it, they can then draft and lodge a submission for consideration of the powers to be.
No wonder Vinduros are gathering strength so quickly.
-
Kevin a period isn't a year it can be any amount of time.
If you think it should be then that would make Brads 78 Evo Maico illegal because it has 81 YZ forks which is absolutely ridiculous, all the parts come from an Evo bike!
At best all you guys are doing with this bullshit debate is harming the Evo class and turning people away who were thinking of racing that class!
82/83 forks have been used for 18 years in the Evo class without any detriment to the class whatsoever...unlike this thread!!
Most of the people in this debate came into the sport well after the inception of the Evo class and think they know it's history..WTF??!!
-
Kevin a period isn't a year it can be any amount of time.
If you think it should be then that would make Brads 78 Evo Maico illegal because it has 81 YZ forks which is absolutely ridiculous, all the parts come from an Evo bike!
At best all you guys are doing with this bullshit debate is harming the Evo class and turning people away who were thinking of racing that class!
82/83 forks have been used for 18 years in the Evo class without any detriment to the class whatsoever...unlike this thread!!
Most of the people in this debate came into the sport well after the inception of the Evo class and think they know it's history..WTF??!!
Thank god someone who knows what there talking about , maybe be its not the modified fork people with an agenda to cheat its the unmodified people crying cause they didn't have the brains to work out what's legal and what's not so who the ones with the agenda then, so far seems to be 3 or 4 having trouble.
Oh and once again you missed the point 2014 shock OK but 30 yr old forks not, go figure
-
An original equipment manufacturer, or OEM, manufactures products or components that are purchased by another company and retailed under that purchasing company's brand name.[1] OEM refers to the company that originally manufactured the product. When referring to automotive parts, OEM designates a replacement part made by the manufacturer of the original part.[2]
So in reading the above yamaha forks are not OEM for a honda as they are not a copy of the original honda part.
-
When referring to automotive parts, OEM designates a replacement part made by the manufacturer of the original part.[2] As most cars are originally assembled with parts made by companies other than the one whose badge appears on the vehicle,cars, it may happen that a car company sells OEM spare parts without claiming to have manufactured the part itself.
An automobile part may carry the designation OEM if it is made by the same manufacturer and is the original part used when building and selling the product.[2] The term aftermarket is often used for non-OEM spare parts.[2]
-
Kevin a period isn't a year it can be any amount of time.
If you think it should be then that would make Brads 78 Evo Maico illegal because it has 81 YZ forks which is absolutely ridiculous, all the parts come from an Evo bike!
At best all you guys are doing with this bullshit debate is harming the Evo class and turning people away who were thinking of racing that class!
82/83 forks have been used for 18 years in the Evo class without any detriment to the class whatsoever...unlike this thread!!
Most of the people in this debate came into the sport well after the inception of the Evo class and think they know it's history..WTF??!!
Thank god someone who knows what there talking about , maybe be its not the modified fork people with an agenda to cheat its the unmodified people crying cause they didn't have the brains to work out what's legal and what's not so who the ones with the agenda then, so far seems to be 3 or 4 having trouble.
Oh and once again you missed the point 2014 shock OK but 30 yr old forks not, go figure
As John has stated on numerous occasions this forums opinions account for 2/5ths of fu..all in the real world. I have proven that. However it is very good at bringing attention to the masses of any shortcomings in VMX.
The three or four of us unmodified, crying, brainless and agenda driven rabble WIll have our submissions to MA on the due date for consideration. I suggest you get busy and do the same. Go figure.
-
[
Oh and once again you missed the point 2014 shock OK but 30 yr old forks not, go figure
Dont think anyones missed the point , shocks are open slater according to the MOMs .
-
[
Oh and once again you missed the point 2014 shock OK but 30 yr old forks not, go figure
Dont think anyones missed the point , shocks are open slater according to the MOMs .
He only wants to interpret what suits him.
-
Ted I'm using YZ 465 forks on my bikes so it doesn't bother me which way the rules go but I can tell you there is absolutely no advantage using 43mm YZ490 or CR480 forks other than the fact the 480 forks are easier to fit to a Honda and 465 front ends are very hard to find.
So it's really got me buggered why the big fuss about the forks on here when it's ok to use cartridge emulators which were never available in the day and really do give improved performance! WTF with that ruling?
And if you think letting people use 82/83 forks is going to open the flood gates for all these modern hotrods with 2 shocks bolted on then where have the hotrods been the last 18yrs while everyone was using the said forks??!
-
John,
As Heaven VMX said, the forks are only the tip of the iceberg. Once you remove the OEM wording it is open slather 2015 VMX.
You say there is no advantage. They say they are for aesthetics and RC replica's.
They are a huge advantage over what the bike came out with ( OEM ) That is the sole reason they are used.
I too have 43mm forks. And to tell you the truth I also don't give a toss. But if you want to have rules they have to be adhered to. Changing out the fork requires a modification to convert later equipment to comply. They are changed cosmetically and technically.
That's a no no according to the MoMS.
What bothers me though is why are only a very few Qlders aware that these forks are allowed without repercussions?
I don't make these rules but I will sure as hell comply with them, as you witnessed at the Wyaralong Nats turning up with the steel arm fitted to my 125 and seeking approval to use the alloy arm.
-
Ted I said the 480/490 forks are no advantage over the 465 forks.. by your ruling it's 100% legal to fit YZ465 forks to a 79 CR250 and they are bigger and changed cosmetically and technical but they're legal so what's the difference!
Plenty of queenslanders are aware 82/83 forks have been allowed, that's why they've been using them. There's also a fair share of NSW and Vic riders using them.
Who said anything about removing the OEM wording and making it open slather? I'm talking about now not what might happen in the future.
-
There is a proposal to delete OEM from the MoMS.
The future is in 12 days John. Time to get anxious don't you think.
-
I'm losing the will to live
-
I'm losing the will to live
August 23rd ...live for it :)
-
I'm losing the will to live
I've already lost it!
-
Here we go again!
http://forum.ozvmx.com/index.php?topic=12720.msg125913#msg125913 (http://forum.ozvmx.com/index.php?topic=12720.msg125913#msg125913)
-
The three or four of us unmodified, crying, brainless and agenda driven rabble WIll have our submissions to MA on the due date for consideration. I suggest you get busy and do the same. Go figure.
[/quote]
Hmmm you may be suprised Teddy me boy, but what ever happens I WILL RIDE MY BIKE and I dont give a tose as to what class im in would be fun taking down pre 85 bikes on me twin shocker,oh shit thats what I was doing today at the QVMX pratice day , dam must have been those fast 43mm forks again ;D
-
I'm losing the will to live
;D ;D ;D ;D unreal, can we do a deal on the twin piper ;D :D
Or do I have to wait for probate ;D ;D
Great to see the last part of your will to go on will be your sense of humor Col ;D ;D
-
Now I remember why I have not been on here for 3-4 months.
-
Wow... I hadn't looked at this thread just assuming it was a long running technical discussion about how to do something. These threads are good for the purpose of discussion but it's funny how they never seem to result in a positive outcome. Personally I don't see why Evo is so hard to define. It should be a relatively simple matter to cover all the bases, it's not like it's rocket science. I agree that the original concept of Evo, and how that was stated, was fine. But clearly people do disagree on the finer points and some do make mods that aren't in keeping with some interpretations of the rules.
I thought the comment re period is a good example - a period could be anything at all. Geologically speaking it's a bit longer than 5 years. But one person think it means one year, another thinks it means several years. So even that simple element of a rule is unclear.
If I were drafting the rules,I'd start with a definition of the various Classic/Post Classic terms, just like they do in legislation. Once you have your definitions, you can then draft your rules without defining terms as you go along or leaving them open to interpretation.
-
Reading and participating on this forum does have benefits. I don't get upset by what others may say, unless it get personnel. Some of the things it has done is make me consider the term OEM.
Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM). So if considering this correctly IMO any replacement parts should only come from the original manufacturer of the part. So Maico forks should only be replaced by Maico, showa by showa, kayaba by kayaba etc, clearly this is not practical. So in my opinion the word OEM should go, but I believe it should be replaced by components must come from EVO legal bikes (or something like that). However there also needs to be provision for replica parts and for the purpose of safety improved parts (approved by MA).
Something everyone needs to be aware of. Any submissions to the MA Board RE the proposed rule changes are only likely to stop the introduction of the change/s not change it to something different. Classic/Post Classic MX and DT are only a small part of what MA administers. The Board have the minutes from every other commission to consider and probably other matters. I believe they do want to change the way things have been done, but change will take time.
When the time is right I will put a submission in, but I will keep it simple and short. It may be too late to go back to what many believe EVO should be, but hopefully we can stop it becoming UK and Dutch Twin Shock.
Kevin
-
There's your challenge Kev, keep it short.
-
Doesn't "submissions" for rule changes have to be done by a club and not individuals?
-
Col I have already said that. I don't need to be reminded it is others.
Evo550 You need to read the whole post this isn't submissions for rule changes, this is comments on the proposed rule changes from the Commission minutes from the MAY 3&4 meeting. The comments will go to the MA Board who will decided whether to make the recommended changes or at this stage leave things as they are.
If you want to read the minutes go to the MA website. http://www.ma.org.au/ (http://www.ma.org.au/)
Kevin
-
I can't see EVO ever becoming like the Dutch twin shock class here. It's a totally different thing and you guys bandering that about are just scaremongering. Common sense says that Showa 43mm conventional forks should be legal for EVO (as they have been shown to be), it really is that simple. Some of you are happy to embrace the allowed modern components which all offer performance enhancements, right down to tapered handlebars, unbreakable levers & black modern rims with oversize stainless spokes etc, but can't get past this fork thing. Soon everyone will have to take their bikes in boxes & assemble them after scrutineering. If someone beats you on an EVO bike with CR480 forks fitted, it's because he was a better rider, nothing to do with the forks.
K
-
I can't see EVO ever becoming like the Dutch twin shock class here. It's a totally different thing and you guys bandering that about are just scaremongering. Common sense says that Showa 43mm conventional forks should be legal for EVO (as they have been shown to be), it really is that simple. Some of you are happy to embrace the allowed modern components which all offer performance enhancements, right down to tapered handlebars, unbreakable levers & black modern rims with oversize stainless spokes etc, but can't get past this fork thing. Soon everyone will have to take their bikes in boxes & assemble them after scrutineering. If someone beats you on an EVO bike with CR480 forks fitted, it's because he was a better rider, nothing to do with the forks.
K
I couldn't agree with you more Bigk...
How the hell modern style cartridge emulators which offer a performance advantage can be ok to use yet forks which look and perform exactly the same as YZ 465 forks are deemed illegal is beyond me.
That and the bullshit proposal of taking age groups away from Evo and giving them to Pre 85 just tells me our sport is not in good hands..!
-
Reading and participating on this forum does have benefits. I don't get upset b what others may say, unless it get personnel. Some of the things it has done is make me consider the term OEM.
Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM). So if considering this correctly IMO any replacement parts should only come from the original manufacturer of the part. So Maico forks should only be replaced by Maico, showa by showa, kayaba by kayaba etc, clearly this is not practical. So in my opinion the word OEM should go, but I believe it should be replaced by components must come from EVO legal bikes (or something like that). However there also needs to be provision for replica parts and for the purpose of safety improved parts (approved by MA).
Something everyone needs to be aware of. Any submissions to the MA Board RE the proposed rule changes are only likely to stop the introduction of the change/s not change it to something different. Classic/Post Classic MX and DT are only a small part of what MA administers. The Board have the minutes from every other commission to consider and probably other matters. I believe they do want to change the way things have been done, but change will take time.
When the time is right I will put a submission in, but I will keep it simple and short. It may be too late to go back to what many believe EVO should be, but hopefully we can stop it becoming UK and Dutch Twin Shock.
Kevin
I'm with you Kevin.
All the arguing (and it has been polite for a change :) ) is just semantics really. It appears that the '82, '83 Showa forks have been on the start line in Evolution class bikes for any number of years with no problems so why tighten the rules now? Yes, Evo post classic racing is relatively new to me, even though I grew up with and rode the bikes back in the day. I was a late starter to VMX after years of chasing my dreams on moderns. However, I have always loved the bikes from my youth and always will. I have been racing pre75 for a few years now even though I have had my Evo CR (RC replica) for around 5 years just sitting in the shed. Some could say that I have a vested interest in amending the current rules, but don't we all in one way or another? The way I see it, the more vintage mx bikes out of sheds and onto start lines, the better.
There does seem to be some ambiguity in the rules. So I will attempt to propose a draft of what COULD clarify rules for the class in an attempt to avoid the UK and Dutch retro twinshock HOTRODS.
1) Frame must be of ORIGINAL Manufacture twin shock design. Yamaha non linkage "monoshock" design is allowed. After market twin shock era frames are allowed.
1b) NO re-engineering of linkage design frames converted to twin rear shocks in an attempt to comply are allowed.
2) Any fork, to a maximum of 43mm stanchion is allowed.
2a) Forks must be of ORIGINAL manufacture drum brake design.
2b) NO re-engineering of disc brake design forks in an attempt to comply are allowed.
3) Brakes must be drum type, front and rear. No disc brakes.
4) Any Engine MUST be Aircooled and be from an original twin shock motocross/enduro frame motor cycle. Engines from Yamaha non linkage "monoshock" motocross/enduro frame motorcycles are allowed.
4b) Engines can be of Four or Two stroke design.
5) Replica after market swing arms are allowed.
6) Handle bars must be 7/8th cross bar design fitted with a protection pad.
6a) NO fat bar design handle bar is allowed.
7) Footpegs must be of the folding type with a self returning mechanism.
8) A chain guide/guard must be utilised and be no more than 30mm from the lowest point of the rear drive sprocket.
9) All motorcycles must have an effective muffler/silencer fitted.
That's it. Any comments are welcome but please, lets not turn any debate/discussion into a slanging match. I want to keep this all positive and attempt to make the rules as clear as possible for the betterment of the class.
Cheers
Mark
-
Guys - I am just sitting back and watching this - way outside my field of expertise - but Mark - weren't the later model Fox Forx 44mm - so careful with the 43mm ruling?
-
Yes they are.
Its great to see somebody put forward their side with style and class. (talking about you TBM)
-
Guys - I am just sitting back and watching this - way outside my field of expertise - but Mark - weren't the later model Fox Forx 44mm - so careful with the 43mm ruling?
Thanks Ross. I'm unfamiliar with stanchion sizes of the Fox Factory Forx. Are they (the model you write of) designed for a drum brake set up? Amending to 44mm stanchions won't be a problem IF the fox fork is for drum brake. I'd hate to leave them out of the equation.
Yes they are.
Its great to see somebody put forward their side with style and class. (talking about you TBM)
Thanks Mick. I do have my good days ;D
-
Here a couple of tweaks that Mick D has suggested. Highlighted in RED I think they should be included. Thanks Mick.
1) Frame must be of ORIGINAL Manufacture twin shock design. Yamaha non linkage "monoshock" design is allowed. After market twin shock Replica era frames are allowed.
1b) NO re-engineering of linkage design frames converted to twin rear shocks in an attempt to comply are allowed.
2) Any fork, to a maximum of 43mm stanchion is allowed.
2a) Forks must be of ORIGINAL manufacture drum brake design.
2b) NO re-engineering of disc brake design forks in an attempt to comply are allowed.
3) Brakes must be drum type, front and rear. No disc brakes.
4) Any Engine MUST be Aircooled and be from an original twin shock motocross/enduro frame motor cycle. Engines from Yamaha non linkage "monoshock" motocross/enduro frame motorcycles are allowed.
4b) Engines can be of Four or Two stroke design.
5) Replica after market swing arms are allowed.
6) Handle bars must be 7/8th cross bar design fitted with a protection pad.
6a) NO fat bar design handle bar is allowed.
7) Footpegs must be of the folding type with a self returning mechanism.
8) A chain guide/guard must be utilised and cover the point of chain return onto the rear drive sprocket.
9) All motorcycles must have an effective muffler/silencer fitted.
-
Ok now you've done that adjoin a bleeding heart note remonstrating the handling deficiencies of shitbox twin shock Hondas, highlighting the fact that it's not fair that a Yamaha can have a bigger fork and also add that if they don't see things your way you will continue to leave your bike parked and just look at it.
Send it to your SCB and wait till August to see how you go. Good luck.
-
This question requires a YES or No response, from the people who interpret the rule as being able to use major components from later model drum brake bikes (in this instance forks)
Can I use 1984 KTM 495 upside down forks on my RM 250 T in the Evo class ?
Thanks.
-
Guys - I am just sitting back and watching this - way outside my field of expertise - but Mark - weren't the later model Fox Forx 44mm - so careful with the 43mm ruling?
Thanks Ross. I'm unfamiliar with stanchion sizes of the Fox Factory Forx. Are they (the model you write of) designed for a drum brake set up? Amending to 44mm stanchions won't be a problem IF the fox fork is for drum brake. I'd hate to leave them out of the equation.
Yes they are.
Its great to see somebody put forward their side with style and class. (talking about you TBM)
Thanks Mick. I do have my good days ;D
Yep, 44mm for Fox forks. As far as I know they were only available to suit drum brake wheels.
-
This question requires a YES or No response, from the people who interpret the rule as being able to use major components from later model drum brake bikes (in this instance forks)
Can I use 1984 KTM 495 upside down forks on my RM 250 T in the Evo class ?
Thanks.
Stupid question.. No
-
The answer to you EVO550 is a no as they are inverted forks not conventional, even though they are drum brake. The sticklers for this are just doing it because they can, it makes no sense at all to "fostering" the sport of VMX racing & will most certainly discourage new participants. As for the Dutch twinshock frankenbike scenario, well that goes against the "spirit" of VMX racing so therefore no fear of that happening. Good thing I'm not a scrutineer, I would decline any bike fitted with tapered bars, black modern rims & gobs of CNC machined billet alloy. Much more of a travesty to vintage bikes than 30 year old conventional forks. The point is moot anyway, it's been proven they are good to go and DT even said so before last years nats so why are these guys so bent up about it? Someone should build a horror of a bike within the current rules & turn up with it to see how they like that, I'm sure the squeals would still come. An example would be a '79 Honda chassis, 1984 Husky 500 engine, '81 YZ465 43mm forks & twin shoe brake with the latest greatest 150 click adjustable rebound/compression shocks, billet alloy everything, Pro taper bars, etc, etc. It's all legal but would be a horrific mismatch and what do you have in the end? A lot worse of a creation than a pair of '82 Honda forks in an '80 model Honda. Please let common sense prevail on this matter.
K
-
This question requires a YES or No response, from the people who interpret the rule as being able to use major components from later model drum brake bikes (in this instance forks)
Can I use 1984 KTM 495 upside down forks on my RM 250 T in the Evo class ?
Thanks.
Stupid question.. No
Stupid question...Why?
No...Why?
I just applied the same reasoning you do by using forks from a drum braked, air cooled, linkage bike. Plus not to mention the reasoning of no performance gain, some would even argue even worse performance than a set on 1984 43mm Yamaha forks..
So why No?
-
Here a couple of tweaks that Mick D has suggested. Highlighted in RED I think they should be included. Thanks Mick.
1) Frame must be of ORIGINAL Manufacture twin shock design. Yamaha non linkage "monoshock" design is allowed. After market twin shock Replica era frames are allowed.
1b) NO re-engineering of linkage design frames converted to twin rear shocks in an attempt to comply are allowed.
2) Any fork, to a maximum of 43mm stanchion is allowed.
2a) Forks must be of ORIGINAL manufacture drum brake design.
2b) NO re-engineering of disc brake design forks in an attempt to comply are allowed.
3) Brakes must be drum type, front and rear. No disc brakes.
4) Any Engine MUST be Aircooled and be from an original twin shock motocross/enduro frame motor cycle. Engines from Yamaha non linkage "monoshock" motocross/enduro frame motorcycles are allowed.
4b) Engines can be of Four or Two stroke design.
5) Replica after market swing arms are allowed.
6) Handle bars must be 7/8th cross bar design fitted with a protection pad.
6a) NO fat bar design handle bar is allowed.
7) Footpegs must be of the folding type with a self returning mechanism.
8) A chain guide/guard must be utilised and cover the point of chain return onto the rear drive sprocket.
9) All motorcycles must have an effective muffler/silencer fitted.
Now here is a black and white set of rules that all can understand and not read between the lines with as the current ones do!!
I'm not against the bigger forks I'm against the way the current rules are so undefinable and to be able to be read different ways and that's why this discussion has come about.
-
This question requires a YES or No response, from the people who interpret the rule as being able to use major components from later model drum brake bikes (in this instance forks)
Can I use 1984 KTM 495 upside down forks on my RM 250 T in the Evo class ?
Thanks.
Stupid question.. No
With the proposed rule change you can use right way up, upside down or diagonally opposed forks if you wish, as long as it came out with a drum brake fitted, irrespective of its linkage rear and water cooled motor if it has one. But why would you bother when you can use 2014 48mm upside down forks. These proposed rule changes will allow that.
-
This question requires a YES or No response, from the people who interpret the rule as being able to use major components from later model drum brake bikes (in this instance forks)
Can I use 1984 KTM 495 upside down forks on my RM 250 T in the Evo class ?
Thanks.
Stupid question.. No
Stupid question...Why?
No...Why?
I just applied the same reasoning you do by using forks from a drum braked, air cooled, linkage bike. Plus not to mention the reasoning of no performance gain, some would even argue even worse performance than a set on 1984 43mm Yamaha forks..
So why No?
Evo bikes have always had to have conventional forks, you know that...
-
The answer to you EVO550 is a no as they are inverted forks not conventional, even though they are drum brake. The sticklers for this are just doing it because they can, it makes no sense at all to "fostering" the sport of VMX racing & will most certainly discourage new participants. As for the Dutch twinshock frankenbike scenario, well that goes against the "spirit" of VMX racing so therefore no fear of that happening. Good thing I'm not a scrutineer, I would decline any bike fitted with tapered bars, black modern rims & gobs of CNC machined billet alloy. Much more of a travesty to vintage bikes than 30 year old conventional forks. The point is moot anyway, it's been proven they are good to go and DT even said so before last years nats so why are these guys so bent up about it? Someone should build a horror of a bike within the current rules & turn up with it to see how they like that, I'm sure the squeals would still come. An example would be a '79 Honda chassis, 1984 Husky 500 engine, '81 YZ465 43mm forks & twin shoe brake with the latest greatest 150 click adjustable rebound/compression shocks, billet alloy everything, Pro taper bars, etc, etc. It's all legal but would be a horrific mismatch and what do you have in the end? A lot worse of a creation than a pair of '82 Honda forks in an '80 model Honda. Please let common sense prevail on this matter.
K
I'm hearin ya K!
-
This question requires a YES or No response, from the people who interpret the rule as being able to use major components from later model drum brake bikes (in this instance forks)
Can I use 1984 KTM 495 upside down forks on my RM 250 T in the Evo class ?
Thanks.
Stupid question.. No
Stupid question...Why?
No...Why?
I just applied the same reasoning you do by using forks from a drum braked, air cooled, linkage bike. Plus not to mention the reasoning of no performance gain, some would even argue even worse performance than a set on 1984 43mm Yamaha forks..
So why No?
Evo bikes have always had to have conventional forks, you know that...
Is that another secret rule as USD forks are not referred to in the rules
-
Exactly. Absolutely no reference to USD forks.
I smell a rat.
-
I'll put my hand up and say the drum brake USD forks of a KTM must be legal. Not a stupid question at all.
-
If KTM had USD forks with drum brake, it in itself is legal. If it has to be modified to fit to a '79 Honda it is not legal.
The MODIFIED clause is the key, and makes a nonsence of talk of 2014 forks etc. As the Meercat says "simple"
-
If KTM had USD forks with drum brake, it in itself is legal. If it has to be modified to fit to a '79 Honda it is not legal.
The MODIFIED clause is the key, and makes a nonsence of talk of 2014 forks etc. As the Meercat says "simple"
Sorry but this is where it all falls over IMHO . Define modified ?
Oxford definition : To make partial or minor changes to (something)
-
We both agree they aren't legal John, but that's where it ends. My reasoning comes from the MOMS, your comes from they need to be conventional ???
Grab my hand and lets go for a skip down memory lane together...now close your eyes. Remember way back when the introduction of a brand new class to vmx called "EVOLUTION" was mentioned. SHOCK HORROR!!!, long travel suspension, single shocks, they cried, it will ruin the sport and destroy the tracks.
But in it came anyway. Way before Pre 78, Way before pre '85 and Way before pre 90.
Do you think that when the rules where first written way back then that the intention was to let components from a watercooled bike into the sport of VMX, or components from a linkage bike into VMX, I think not.
No other class has that luxury, you can't put a set of 77 Maico forks on a pre 75 elsinore and still race it in Pre 75.
If your putting a set of '83 43mm Honda forks on your CR250, go right ahead, just race it in the pre '85 class..
-
The answer to you EVO550 is a no as they are inverted forks not conventional, even though they are drum brake. The sticklers for this are just doing it because they can, it makes no sense at all to "fostering" the sport of VMX racing & will most certainly discourage new participants. As for the Dutch twinshock frankenbike scenario, well that goes against the "spirit" of VMX racing so therefore no fear of that happening. Good thing I'm not a scrutineer, I would decline any bike fitted with tapered bars, black modern rims & gobs of CNC machined billet alloy. Much more of a travesty to vintage bikes than 30 year old conventional forks. The point is moot anyway, it's been proven they are good to go and DT even said so before last years nats so why are these guys so bent up about it? Someone should build a horror of a bike within the current rules & turn up with it to see how they like that, I'm sure the squeals would still come. An example would be a '79 Honda chassis, 1984 Husky 500 engine, '81 YZ465 43mm forks & twin shoe brake with the latest greatest 150 click adjustable rebound/compression shocks, billet alloy everything, Pro taper bars, etc, etc. It's all legal but would be a horrific mismatch and what do you have in the end? A lot worse of a creation than a pair of '82 Honda forks in an '80 model Honda. Please let common sense prevail on this matter.
K
Now I know where we pick up the speed from ,the tag bars and black rims ;D ;D
-
Putting mag wheels on a vehicle is a modification , changeing a exhurst on a car or bike is a modification , puting later parts on a earlier bike is a modification . Col you got it wright :)
-
If KTM had USD forks with drum brake, it in itself is legal. If it has to be modified to fit to a '79 Honda it is not legal.
The MODIFIED clause is the key, and makes a nonsence of talk of 2014 forks etc. As the Meercat says "simple"
Nonsense is it.
If the OEM wording is struck from the rules all you have to do is manufacture a brake plate to suit any fork you care to use. Doing this you become a manufacturer, not a modifier converting later equipment to comply. You make it from new, hence no modifications required. Simple.
-
I'm new to this stuff and don't know much but what sounds fair and legit to me is if you choose to run an 1984 engine in a 1979 bike you run in pre 85. if you run components of a pre 95 bike on your pre 90 you run pre 95.
I don't want to rock the boat and I haven't studied the rules but that's my opinion from an outsider looking in on this argument and what I think is period correct .
-
We both agree they aren't legal John, but that's where it ends. My reasoning comes from the MOMS, your comes from they need to be conventional ???
Grab my hand and lets go for a skip down memory lane together...now close your eyes. Remember way back when the introduction of a brand new class to vmx called "EVOLUTION" was mentioned. SHOCK HORROR!!!, long travel suspension, single shocks, they cried, it will ruin the sport and destroy the tracks.
But in it came anyway. Way before Pre 78, Way before pre '85 and Way before pre 90.
Do you think that when the rules where first written way back then that the intention was to let components from a watercooled bike into the sport of VMX, or components from a linkage bike into VMX, I think not.
No other class has that luxury, you can't put a set of 77 Maico forks on a pre 75 elsinore and still race it in Pre 75.
If your putting a set of '83 43mm Honda forks on your CR250, go right ahead, just race it in the pre '85 class..
Ok mate I've just taken a little hop skip and jump down memory lane when I rode in the first year of the Evo class in 96 at the Thumper Nats on my 79 CR250 with 83 CR480 forks and it was legal then (by the way where we're you?) and so was my 81 490 Maico with 83 YZ490 forks at the very first Australian Evo Title in 2004 at Conondale..
The rules haven't changed since then!
-
Be careful John. Just because Evo was or wasn't at the Thumpernats when the twin shock racing started, doesn't mean his argument is or isn't correct. And wasn't the support class at the Thumpernats called twin shock, not evolution? I rode in 4/stroke events and a friend had a husky in the twin shock. I remember thinking then that it was an odd concept (not having a cut off date).
-
The think I do not understand , if the later model forks make no difference to the bike why run them ?
-
Because they make a hell of a difference to the forks the bike was manufactured with. 37mm compared to later 43mm Do the sums.
-
Be careful John. Just because Evo was or wasn't at the Thumpernats when the twin shock racing started, doesn't mean his argument is or isn't correct. And wasn't the support class at the Thumpernats called twin shock, not evolution? I rode in 4/stroke events and a friend had a husky in the twin shock. I remember thinking then that it was an odd concept (not having a cut off date).
Grahame 93-95 it was called twinshock then it changed to Evo so that Yamaha's could race.
The rules have always been the same since the beginning of Evo so if 82/83 forks were legal then why aren't they now?
-
For god sake let them have their forks ,if it helps them that much . The only thing that worries me is whats next ?.
Just don't see why they must have them ,the two highest placed crs at all the nats that I have been to run std forks .
-
To me evo rules are simple. Any part from any evo legal bike can go on any evo legal bike.
Eg 1979 CR can have 1981 YZ465 43mm forks, 44mm Fox forks or even 1984 40mm Husky forks, but not 1981 or later CR forks. Just like any pre85 legal bike can use parts from any other pre85 bike.
Just because something is or has been excepted in the past doesnt mean it has to be now or in the future.
This is the big problem for evolution. It is too open to interpretation. I have tried to explain my take on it, but understand if it is wide of the mark with regards to history.
-
To me evo rules are simple. Any part from any evo legal bike can go on any evo legal bike.
Eg 1979 CR can have 1981 YZ465 43mm forks, 44mm Fox forks or even 1984 40mm Husky forks, but not 1981 or later CR forks. Just like any pre85 legal bike can use parts from any other pre85 bike.
Just because something is or has been excepted in the past doesnt mean it has to be now or in the future.
This is the big problem for evolution. It is too open to interpretation. I have tried to explain my take on it, but understand if it is wide of the mark with regards to history.
I understand what you're saying Grahame and the rules do need rewriting to make clearer but at the end of the day the class is healthy and the rules work and whether they're 81,82 or 83 conventional forks they all look and function the same...
It's not a big problem just a whole lot of noise on here
-
Be careful John. Just because Evo was or wasn't at the Thumpernats when the twin shock racing started, doesn't mean his argument is or isn't correct. And wasn't the support class at the Thumpernats called twin shock, not evolution? I rode in 4/stroke events and a friend had a husky in the twin shock. I remember thinking then that it was an odd concept (not having a cut off date).
Grahame 93-95 it was called twinshock then it changed to Evo so that Yamaha's could race.
The rules have always been the same since the beginning of Evo so if 82/83 forks were legal then why aren't they now?
Thumpernats??? What does that have to do with VMX?
-
Be careful John. Just because Evo was or wasn't at the Thumpernats when the twin shock racing started, doesn't mean his argument is or isn't correct. And wasn't the support class at the Thumpernats called twin shock, not evolution? I rode in 4/stroke events and a friend had a husky in the twin shock. I remember thinking then that it was an odd concept (not having a cut off date).
Grahame 93-95 it was called twinshock then it changed to Evo so that Yamaha's could race.
The rules have always been the same since the beginning of Evo so if 82/83 forks were legal then why aren't they now?
Thumpernats??? What does that have to do with VMX?
Have you been under a rock? That's where the Evo class and the current rules originated!
Then in 98 Qvmx adopted the class and the same rules straight from the Thumper Nats!
-
I have a 79 CR250 recently restored for the intension of racing it. I am wanting to upgrade the Front End. I was hoping members could give me some suggestions of conversions they have done which have worked well. I was thinking 43mm 480 forks, has anyone done that conversion?
Does anyone have anything available to buy as mentioned above.
Any feedback appreciated.
Thanks
PB
;D 11 pages ;D
-
Really, I remember sitting at QVMX committee meetings, discussing the introduction of this new Evo class that Heaven was running......
but considering this is on the slippery slope to the dumbgeon, I'll leave you to it...my rock awaits.
-
I have a 79 CR250 recently restored for the intension of racing it. I am wanting to upgrade the Front End. I was hoping members could give me some suggestions of conversions they have done which have worked well. I was thinking 43mm 480 forks, has anyone done that conversion?
Does anyone have anything available to buy as mentioned above.
Any feedback appreciated.
Thanks
PB
;D 11 pages ;D
Most of it useless though!! ;)
-
Really, I remember sitting at QVMX committee meetings, discussing the introduction of this new Evo class that Heaven was running......
but considering this is on the slippery slope to the dumbgeon, I'll leave you to it...my rock awaits.
I'll guarantee you mate that it started at the Thumper Nats, Ballard rang Rick Doughty in the US to get the class rules and then spoke to Geoff Holmes and myself about it.
Remember I was the one on the track racing it and you were in the committee room... :)
-
To me evo rules are simple. Any part from any evo legal bike can go on any evo legal bike.
Eg 1979 CR can have 1981 YZ465 43mm forks, 44mm Fox forks or even 1984 40mm Husky forks, but not 1981 or later CR forks. Just like any pre85 legal bike can use parts from any other pre85 bike.
Just because something is or has been excepted in the past doesnt mean it has to be now or in the future.
This is the big problem for evolution. It is too open to interpretation. I have tried to explain my take on it, but understand if it is wide of the mark with regards to history.
I understand what you're saying Grahame and the rules do need rewriting to make clearer but at the end of the day the class is healthy and the rules work and whether they're 81,82 or 83 conventional forks they all look and function the same...
It's not a big problem just a whole lot of noise on here
So to clarify the secret rule is now conventional forks with drum brakes? This secret rule stuff is hard to keep up with
-
To me evo rules are simple. Any part from any evo legal bike can go on any evo legal bike.
Eg 1979 CR can have 1981 YZ465 43mm forks, 44mm Fox forks or even 1984 40mm Husky forks, but not 1981 or later CR forks. Just like any pre85 legal bike can use parts from any other pre85 bike.
Just because something is or has been excepted in the past doesnt mean it has to be now or in the future.
This is the big problem for evolution. It is too open to interpretation. I have tried to explain my take on it, but understand if it is wide of the mark with regards to history.
I understand what you're saying Grahame and the rules do need rewriting to make clearer but at the end of the day the class is healthy and the rules work and whether they're 81,82 or 83 conventional forks they all look and function the same...
It's not a big problem just a whole lot of noise on here
So to clarify the secret rule is now conventional forks with drum brakes? This secret rule stuff is hard to keep up with
It's not a secret if you've been racing the Evo class for a number of years or bothered to attend this year's Nats, it's only a secret to the johnny come lately's who think they made the rules.
-
Why conventional forks only? If, as the example used, 1983 43mm Showas are allowed, who can tell me why drum braked WP USD forks off a 1984 KTM are not allowed?
-
Because they are only protecting them self's running the forks they have fitted .
-
Grahame no Evo bike came out with upside down forks but they did come out with 43mm conventionals.
-
Do you even think upside down forks would look right on a twin shock Evo bike?
-
Just using this as an example. No evo bike came out with 43mm Showas. Also looks have nothing to do with the argument. A 1984 495 KTM looks like a twin shock one except for the rear end.
-
Just using this as an example. No evo bike came out with 43mm Showas. Also looks have nothing to do with the argument. A 1984 495 KTM looks like a twin shock one except for the rear end.
No Evo bike came out with White Power forks either..
-
Yeh and no cr250 came out with 81 ,82 and 83 model fork ether
-
Again I say this has got out of hand. It all started with a guy asking about forks, I stated an answer to him that it was legal to run the Honda 43mm forks but people are trying to change that and now all hell has broken loose.
Ok I see it under the current rules 3 points,
There is no special rule we are hiding it is the rule, they (82 Honda Forks) are from an era of racing defined by the fact that that a 84 Husky is eligible to race in evo. question 1 what is an era is answered
They are a straight bolt on part without cutting welding and use all Honda OEM parts (including the front wheel, axle and brake). Question 2 answered
The rule as written only excludes Linkage suspension, disc brakes and I have not fitted these, the fact that the bike the forks are from do have these is not relevant the rule does not read that way and anyone who is reading that into it is doing so to suit themselves question 3 answered
Now the question to Ted and the others is to put forward a case that has a rule to back it up that they are not legal. now look at the way the current (and the rules that have not changed for some time) are written.
I have an email from Bruce McFarland from 2006 where he pointed out to me that he ran these forks on all his bikes and they were legal to do so. So Heaven VMX that sort of shoots a hole in the QLD theory.
I am not the greatest motocross rider even as a young guy I was at best a mid pack C grade rider so I am not doing it to win a plastic trophy I have enough of them from my time Kart and road racing days. I fit the forks as they look good and I enjoy riding the bike with them.
I also don't agree with 20 year old kids racing VMX to smash the 50 year olds and win that much sort after 15 dollar trophy but there is no rule against that and as I said currently no one has put up a reason under the current rules as to why I cannot run these forks.
Gentleman put for facts and not your own personal agenda from here on.
-
Who wrote the EVO rules we are using today ?
Was it Doughty, Ballard, Applegren, Holmes, Kittle or Tanner?
-
Again I say this has got out of hand. It all started with a guy asking about forks, I stated an answer to him that it was legal to run the Honda 43mm forks but people are trying to change that and now all hell has broken loose.
Ok I see it under the current rules 3 points,
There is no special rule we are hiding it is the rule, they (82 Honda Forks) are from an era of racing defined by the fact that that a 84 Husky is eligible to race in evo. question 1 what is an era is answered
They are a straight bolt on part without cutting welding and use all Honda OEM parts (including the front wheel, axle and brake). Question 2 answered
The rule as written only excludes Linkage suspension, disc brakes and I have not fitted these, the fact that the bike the forks are from do have these is not relevant the rule does not read that way and anyone who is reading that into it is doing so to suit themselves question 3 answered
Now the question to Ted and the others is to put forward a case that has a rule to back it up that they are not legal. now look at the way the current (and the rules that have not changed for some time) are written.
This post IMHO puts forward the best case for the defence :) the argument that we have been doing it forever doesn't make it right but explained like this its hard to argue with .
The 84 Huskys have been used as an example , so is 84 the year cut off for Evo bikes or Evo parts or is there still no year cut off ?
-
And the opposing argument is that major components cannot be taken from a bike with ( either or all ) disc brakes , water cooling or linkage suspension regardless of manufacture date
-
there is no cut off.
You can ride a mid 90s DT175 if that rocks your boat, as one person does in qld, Its a technology based class not era.
-
So can I fit conventional forks from a 1998 RM 250 to my 1979 RM 250 ? I will fabricate a bracket to hold the front brake backing plate and bolt it to the caliper mounts .
-
And the opposing argument is that major components cannot be taken from a bike with ( either or all ) disc brakes , water cooling or linkage suspension regardless of manufacture date
Again you are reading this rule wrong. It does not say that you cannot fit parts it only says what you cannot fit. No disc brakes, no linkage suspension and the bike (the original bike you are racing) must be air cooled.
It to me is pretty clear on this point and this is how the rule has read
Shane
-
Going off the era argument saying that later forks are legal then side port yz490 motors must be legal as well because they bolt straight into yz250 & 465 frames
I'm glad that this argument hasn't hit NZ yet
-
So can I fit conventional forks from a 1998 RM 250 to my 1979 RM 250 ? I will fabricate a bracket to hold the front brake backing plate and bolt it to the caliper mounts .
If the OEM wording is removed yes you can because you are not modifying, you are manufacturing. No modification required
-
So can I fit conventional forks from a 1998 RM 250 to my 1979 RM 250 ? I will fabricate a bracket to hold the front brake backing plate and bolt it to the caliper mounts .
Bill, short no as you need to make a bracket for it to fit. That would be covered by the fact that you have modified to fit and not OEM, also you cannot run disk brake on evo as it states this clearly in the rules.
That is what makes the Honda (in the case of the 79) legal as you do not have to modify anything. The thing that came up earlier about fitting 500 engines to the 79 is also a joke as you would need to modify the engine mounts (and most off all the frame) to fit these and that is also against the current and proposed rules. The rule states that engines and gearbox must remain externally unchanged as I am entering a 79 CR 250 the engine would have to be a 78 or 79 CR 250 and not a 450 or 480 engine as these differ, for that point I can't even fit a 80 CR 250 engine as the barrel differs.
As for the rule changes I am not sure as to why these are being put forward. Evo has works well for the last 10 years with the current rules and I see no reason to change them.
No one has yet pointed out to me as to how I am reading my interpretation of the rule wrong. Not their point of view but how it is wrong via the current rules?
I am not trying to shit stir I was answering a question that was asked at the start of this thread and as usual all the so call experts have put in their two bobs worth without looking at the facts.
I am not going to post again on this topic as I have covered and expanded all my points of view. I did say about 8 pages ago this thread should be put to bead as it has turned out like the last thread pre the nats.
I will beg to differ with some of you on here as it is your point of view and you are entitled to it.
Shane Wilson
-
I'm glad that this argument hasn't hit NZ yet
I don't think it will Tony as we self govern rather than be held to a system that is administered at the top level by people with zero interest in Vintage MX or DT other than collecting the fees and further down the chain by volunteers who with the best intentions in the world still have to work from a book that is open to different interpretations . Even when the masses want a change it is a very long winded process and those at the top with no interest other than financial still seem to have the final say.
Iv'e said it before and I will say it again the Aussie template ( the rules not the over complicated administration ) for running VMX events scores IMHO a 9 out of 10 just needs a little tuning to take away some of the ambiguity and threads like this would go away.
-
By the way, I'm told PB found some forks. End of thread.
K
-
So can I fit conventional forks from a 1998 RM 250 to my 1979 RM 250 ? I will fabricate a bracket to hold the front brake backing plate and bolt it to the caliper mounts .
Bill, short no as you need to make a bracket for it to fit. That would be covered by the fact that you have modified to fit and not OEM, also you cannot run disk brake on evo as it states this clearly in the rules.
That is what make the Honda (in the case of the 79) legal as you do not have to modify anything. The thing that came up earlier about fitting 500 engines to the 79 is also a joke as you would need to modify the engine mounts (and most off all the frame) to fit these and that is also against the current and proposed rules. The rule states that engines and gearbox must remain externally unchanged as I am entering a 79 CR 250 the engine would have to be a 78 or 79 CR 250 and not a 450 or 480 engine as these differ, for that point I can't even fit a 80 CR 250 engine as the barrel differs.
As for the rule changes I am not sure as to why these are being put forward. Evo has works well for the last 10 years with the current rules and I see no reason to change them.
No one has yet pointed out to me as to how I am reading my interpretation of the rule wrong. Not there point of view but how it is wrong via the current rules?
I am not trying to shit stir I was answering a question that was asked at the start of this thread and as usual all the so call experts have put in their two bobs worth without looking at the facts.
I am not going to post again on this topic as I have covered and expanded all my points of view. I did say about 8 pages ago this thread should be put to bead as it has turned out like the last thread pre the nats.
I will beg to differ with some of you on here as it is your point of view and you are entitled to it.
Shane Wilson
Thanks Shane , im still not convinced though as the parts are Suzuki OEM and I will have to change the head stem as you do on the Honda forks and make a billet bracket to bolt on to hold the backing plate .
The bracket is no different to those fitted to Simons or Fox forks built for Euro bikes that have to have a brake stay fitted ???
-
Shane
How did your 79 CR 250 go at scrutineering at the recent Echo Valley Nats
Did it just breeze through and ran in EVO 250
-
Halalulya !! This debate is going nowhere and getting sillier by the minute. Ted if you want to design and have manufactured USD forks or whatever, and pay for it, if you think that gets around the "modified" barrier then go for it.
Be interesting to see who of these advocates picking at a rule that has served us well and never been challenged at a Nats, actually compete as a rider at full on VMX events. Even more relevant is how many ride in the Evolution Class. Having narrowed it significantly, how many genuine riders who actually compete in Ausralia in the Evo Class, have real issues with the current rule, or feel disadvantaged by it.
What is clear,is that with the nitpicking of some of the armchair heroes on this forum, no set of rules would survive their scrutiny. I do not include the clear thinking positive contribuitions made by some who genuinely want to support and improve our sport in the above comments.
What is also clear is the damage to the sport these uproars cause. Every Nats is preceded by this forum going ape over something or other, and it's getting worse. I've personally been contacted by three people thinking of getting into Evo who are having second thoughts because of this thread.
Just in the past three years, in which I've been involved in running three Nats and one Qld title, as much time and energy has been putting out these scrub fires as actually on the event itself. In each instant it has all amounted to nothing on the day.
-
Shane
How did your 79 CR 250 go at scrutineering at the recent Echo Valley Nats
Did it just breeze through and ran in EVO 250
It would have had he entered, a 79 KX250 with 83 YZ forks went straight through scrutineering in front of me no problem!!
Several people were put off entering because of all the noise qvmx people made on here saying their forks were illegal and they would be knocked back from riding in Evo..
-
There was only one person with the power to say yes or no on that bike john, not the clubs response ability at that level . Yet a 1989 cr 500 was pulled up with later forks and the owner changed them over so he could ride the event No problems. Once people start using the clubs name I will respond to the post . Most people with in the area we live are in both clubs qvmx and bmcc. All this bs started a while back from a person that didn't even ride the event . Go figure
-
Some of you are quick to bag forum members or non riders but the problem lies with the vagueness of the interpretation of the era of Evo and that's not the fault of those that question it.
-
It seems to me that some people on this forum , like Davey Crocket and Ted, are like the Taliban of VMX. They have their own extremist interpretation of the rules, that is like Sharia law. Anyone who does not agree with their pedantic ideas of the rules are regarded as infidels, or "cheats". What bugs me is Taliban Ted repeatedly claims that he is speaking for majority, when most people that I talk to, that race in Evo class, don't agree with him. Maybe I mix in the wrong circles ? This sport is not Moto GP and is supposed to be about having fun on old bikes, but if I was a newcomer and considering getting started in Evo class, I would be having second thoughts after reading the numerous threads like this. All of the arguements are only over minor wording of the rules.
I first got interested in this class of racing, after watching Geoff Holmes, John Kittle, Roy Gay and others riding in the twinshock class at the '96 Conondale Thumpernats round. I thought that it was a great concept , with basically 3 simple rules - being air-cooled motor , drum brakes and non-linkage suspension. I came back and rode my '84 Husky 500 in the '97 Conondale Thumpernats round, had a ball and have been racing Evo class on either '84 Huskys or '81 Maicos ever since. I have no problem with anyone in this class using any conventional front end that originally came fitted with drum brakes.
-
Its amusing that apparently all that is said on this forum is wind and piss by quote "armchair heroes" and has no relevance in the real world where there are no problems , yet comments on here are detrimental to the sport , go figure ::)
Quote "Be interesting to see who of these advocates picking at a rule that has served us well and never been challenged at a Nats, actually compete as a rider at full on VMX events. Even more relevant is how many ride in the Evolution Class. Having narrowed it significantly, how many genuine riders who actually compete in Ausralia in the Evo Class, have real issues with the current rule, or feel disadvantaged by it."
Good point ;) perhaps Graeme could narrow the right of reply to those fit the above criteria or maybe take it a step further and only allow comments from close associates of commissioners and other officials and others who agree with them ;)
Quote " Some of you are quick to bag forum members or non riders but the problem lies with the vagueness of the interpretation of the era of Evo and that's not the fault of those that question it"
Spot on Geoff :).
Quote "It seems to me that some people on this forum , like Davey Crocket and Ted, are like the Taliban of VMX"
Osama bin Brack and Ayatollah Tate ;D
-
Fair dinkum Ted....you'd point holes in a donut! And to all the others who have followed on with Ted and his ridiculous mindless arguments and interpretations, have you even read the proposed set of rules?
I went to the effort of attempting to have a set of rules without any ambiguity as to what is and what isn't allowed in Evolution class racing. I even asked for the discussion to remain positive and to ad suggestions. Seems there is no keeping some people happy even though they agree the rules are very open to various interpretations.
Here are the proposed rules again. Amendments are highlighted in RED
1) Frame must be of ORIGINAL Manufacture twin shock design. Yamaha non linkage "monoshock" design is allowed. After market twin shock Replica era frames are allowed.
1b) NO re-engineering of linkage design frames converted to twin rear shocks in an attempt to comply are allowed.
2) Any fork, to a maximum of 44mm stanchion is allowed.
2a) Forks must be of ORIGINAL manufacture drum brake design.
2b) NO re-engineering of disc brake design forks in an attempt to comply are allowed.
2c) All forks must be of conventional type. NO USD forks are allowed
3) Brakes must be drum type, front and rear. No disc brakes.
4) Any Engine MUST be Aircooled and be from an original twin shock motocross/enduro frame motor cycle. Engines from Yamaha non linkage "monoshock" motocross/enduro frame motorcycles are allowed.
4b) Engines can be of Four or Two stroke design.
5) Replica after market swing arms are allowed.
6) Handle bars must be 7/8th cross bar design fitted with a protection pad.
6a) NO fat bar design handle bar is allowed.
7) Footpegs must be of the folding type with a self returning mechanism.
8) A chain guide/guard must be utilised and cover the point of chain return onto the rear drive sprocket.
9) All motorcycles must have an effective muffler/silencer fitted.
This is NOT about the CR Honda's. This is about trying to make a clear and concise set of rules to STOP all the BS that goes on just before National events and letting all concerned know, in black and white, what is and what isn't allowed. Regardless of what has been accepted as kosher in the past, there are still those that get their collective noses out of joint and make the current rules into whatever they see them to be.
-
There was only one person with the power to say yes or no on that bike john, not the clubs response ability at that level . Yet a 1989 cr 500 was pulled up with later forks and the owner changed them over so he could ride the event No problems. Once people start using the clubs name I will respond to the post . Most people with in the area we live are in both clubs qvmx and bmcc. All this bs started a while back from a person that didn't even ride the event . Go figure
Brian he didn't ride the event because a qvmx member told him he would not be allowed to ride Evo with those front forks.
I will state the facts as they were and there was a lot of noise behind the scene that Dave Tanner was going to be replaced as Chief Scrutineer so no one knew where they stood with bike eligibility!
Last thing I want is to argue with you Brian but there are plenty of qld vmx riders pissed with the way things have been handled..
-
Fair dinkum Ted....you'd point holes in a donut! And to all the others who have followed on with Ted and his ridiculous mindless arguments and interpretations, have you even read the proposed set of rules?
I went to the effort of attempting to have a set of rules without any ambiguity as to what is and what isn't allowed in Evolution class racing. I even asked for the discussion to remain positive and to ad suggestions. Seems there is no keeping some people happy even though they agree the rules are very open to various interpretations.
Here are the proposed rules again. Amendments are highlighted in RED
1) Frame must be of ORIGINAL Manufacture twin shock design. Yamaha non linkage "monoshock" design is allowed. After market twin shock Replica era frames are allowed.
1b) NO re-engineering of linkage design frames converted to twin rear shocks in an attempt to comply are allowed.
2) Any fork, to a maximum of 44mm stanchion is allowed.
2a) Forks must be of ORIGINAL manufacture drum brake design.
2b) NO re-engineering of disc brake design forks in an attempt to comply are allowed.
2c) All forks must be of conventional type. NO USD forks are allowed
3) Brakes must be drum type, front and rear. No disc brakes.
4) Any Engine MUST be Aircooled and be from an original twin shock motocross/enduro frame motor cycle. Engines from Yamaha non linkage "monoshock" motocross/enduro frame motorcycles are allowed.
4b) Engines can be of Four or Two stroke design.
5) Replica after market swing arms are allowed.
6) Handle bars must be 7/8th cross bar design fitted with a protection pad.
6a) NO fat bar design handle bar is allowed.
7) Footpegs must be of the folding type with a self returning mechanism.
8) A chain guide/guard must be utilised and cover the point of chain return onto the rear drive sprocket.
9) All motorcycles must have an effective muffler/silencer fitted.
This is NOT about the CR Honda's. This is about trying to make a clear and concise set of rules to STOP all the BS that goes on just before National events and letting all concerned know, in black and white, what is and what isn't allowed. Regardless of what has been accepted as kosher in the past, there are still those that get their collective noses out of joint and make the current rules into whatever they see them to be.
Mate I like your rules and it looks like we need some in depth rules such as these to stop punters finding loop holes..
-
Keep pissing in your mates pocket, you'll eventually convince him it's raining
Our submissions are in, are yours?
-
Who are you talking to Ted?
-
Brian he didn't ride the event because a qvmx member told him he would not be allowed to ride Evo with those front forks.
I will state the facts as they were and there was a lot of noise behind the scene that Dave Tanner was going to be replaced as Chief Scrutineer so no one knew where they stood with bike eligibility!
Last thing I want is to argue with you Brian but there are plenty of qld vmx riders pissed with the way things have been handled..
And I also chose not to go to my first Evolution title event because of being told that my CR's front end would be knocked back. The fact that the bloke I was going with to share costs of travel got injured beforehand, and wasn't able to go, added fuel to that fire.
I have been bagged on here for attempting to clarify the rules regarding Evolution. I even used all the information from those that have been around the Evo class since it's inception to attempt a re-write of a clear set of rules based on what they allowed and didn't allow back in the beginning.
To argue that the current rules have worked for so long is a moot point really when there are still those that want to argue the ruling of any eligibility scrutineer. Plenty of people on here and off agree that the current rules are about as clear as mud.
All this crap about "frankenbikes" appearing because of allowing 44mm (to allow the Fox Factory Forx) conventional forks from a later model bike to be used is just plain nonsense. Has the use of late model, multi-adjustable rear shocks turned bikes into something we never saw in the day? The bike still looks the same as it did in the day BUT it now has rear shocks that work a whole better than OEM units.
How anyone can interpret; 2b) NO re-engineering of disc brake design forks in an attempt to comply are allowed.) into being able to make your own brackets to adapt a drum brake to comply with the rule is beyond me.
How anyone can suggest that USD forks are able to be used on an Evo class bike is also beyond me. Some people will never see the trees through a forest ::)
-
Keep pissing in your mates pocket, you'll eventually convince him it's raining
Our submissions are in, are yours?
As usual....running to the beat of your own drum Ted.
Why don't you show the conviction of your word and share your submission with the rest of us......
-
My 84 husky with J Yamaha forks+TLS brake was personally scrutineered by DTanner at echo valley (PC Nats) and at the Qld Champs this year. No problem. FACT .
More OPINION going on here than FACT, as John K is saying this is not reality!
we all like the look of big forks, only 200 pairs of fox 44mm forks were made hence the price/availability now makes them out of reach - $3k+, there are miles of old drum brake forks out there why not use them ? More bums on seats.
I was over in the UK last year and was discussing racing in the pre 73 European class and the bloke I was talking said the Czech guys were cheating by having long travel suspension etc. I said why didn't you protest? he said that's bad manners and we beat them anyway! very English... I think those who shout cheat here (when its noteven true) could take a lesson there! Taliban HA!!
Its a technology based class - bring on the hot rods! the fast guys will still win anyway .
Get forked!
-
LOL ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Keep pissing in your mates pocket, you'll eventually convince him it's raining
Our submissions are in, are yours?
As usual....running to the beat of your own drum Ted.
Why don't you show the conviction of your word and share your submission with the rest of us......
It's just a game to him TBM like the RM swingarm issue.. it's the only place he gets his thrills since not being able to ride after the histerectomy and now putting kids on his bikes and hurling abuse from the sidelines... not unlike a soccer mum
-
I think we need to stop the personal insults now!!!!
Here are the facts exact dates may not be correct but they are close. EVO was first run in Qld in the early nineties. When we started the ThunderX series the rules were in the sup-regs. The following are those rules.
"The Evolution Class is the same as the class in the USA (ie no linkage suspension, air cooled, drum brakes & no cartridge forks) most Twin Shock machines and Yamahas up to 1981 models (approximately) are eligible. Note:- The machine must have originally been manufactured with Twin Shocks or No Linkage and be within the spirit of the class. "
I don't know what other states did or when they introduced the class.
Thumper Nats were running Twin Shock when it started but then changed to EVO and I believe used the same rules.
It wasn't until the 2004 MOMS that MA introduced the class. Those rules were written by the Commission.
I do believe the current rules need to change, but not to what has been proposed. I think all the current Classic MX & DT rules need reviewing, but only after proper consultation with Clubs who are involved in Classic MX & DT.
I have found another section of the MOMS that gives a guide as to how things could go.
It may be too late to go back to what many may think the rules should be, but as I said previously, I'm sure we don't want the class totally bastardised. Also EVO has got and always has had an era. It is the period the machine was manufactured.
TBM I don't mind what you have proposed and that could be the basis for what might occur. Also EVO isn't the only class that needs clarifying.
Also I won't be posting on here or anywhere else what I may or may not submit to MA and I don't think anyone else should also.
This thread has been useful (apart from the personal attacks and name calling). I learnt a long time ago to ignore a lot of that shit, however every now and then I do snap.
One other point the proposed rule changes form the Commission want to change the age groups for the Aust Post Classic MX & DT championships from the EVO classes to Pre 85. Is that what we want??????
Kevin
-
Fair dinkum Ted....you'd point holes in a donut! And to all the others who have followed on with Ted and his ridiculous mindless arguments and interpretations, have you even read the proposed set of rules?
I went to the effort of attempting to have a set of rules without any ambiguity as to what is and what isn't allowed in Evolution class racing. I even asked for the discussion to remain positive and to ad suggestions. Seems there is no keeping some people happy even though they agree the rules are very open to various interpretations.
Here are the proposed rules again. Amendments are highlighted in RED
1) Frame must be of ORIGINAL Manufacture twin shock design. Yamaha non linkage "monoshock" design is allowed. After market twin shock Replica era frames are allowed.
1b) NO re-engineering of linkage design frames converted to twin rear shocks in an attempt to comply are allowed.
2) Any fork, to a maximum of 44mm stanchion is allowed.
2a) Forks must be of ORIGINAL manufacture drum brake design.
2b) NO re-engineering of disc brake design forks in an attempt to comply are allowed.
2c) All forks must be of conventional type. NO USD forks are allowed
3) Brakes must be drum type, front and rear. No disc brakes.
4) Any Engine MUST be Aircooled and be from an original twin shock motocross/enduro frame motor cycle. Engines from Yamaha non linkage "monoshock" motocross/enduro frame motorcycles are allowed.
4b) Engines can be of Four or Two stroke design.
5) Replica after market swing arms are allowed.
6) Handle bars must be 7/8th cross bar design fitted with a protection pad.
6a) NO fat bar design handle bar is allowed.
7) Footpegs must be of the folding type with a self returning mechanism.
8) A chain guide/guard must be utilised and cover the point of chain return onto the rear drive sprocket.
9) All motorcycles must have an effective muffler/silencer fitted.
This is NOT about the CR Honda's. This is about trying to make a clear and concise set of rules to STOP all the BS that goes on just before National events and letting all concerned know, in black and white, what is and what isn't allowed. Regardless of what has been accepted as kosher in the past, there are still those that get their collective noses out of joint and make the current rules into whatever they see them to be.
Mate I like your rules and it looks like we need some in depth rules such as these to stop punters finding loop holes..
TBM, I like your take on a proposal for the rules as well. The only thing I can see after a quick look, is there is nothing that mentions what sort of carburettors or aftermarket reed blocks that are allowed.
To be honest, although I am dead against Dutch twinshock style bikes, I have never really had a problem with the use of any air-cooled motor in a frame originally manufactured with twin shocks (such as a CR480 in a CR250RA frame). I think that the Phil Denton Engineering big bore Hondas built for the visiting USA riders at the Farleigh Castle VMXDN are awesome looking machines and are still in my opinion within the spirit of the sport. But I do accept that my viewpoint on this is probably not shared by the majority of Evo class riders in Australia. So yes, I think the the wording of the rules proposed by TBM, clears up most of the grey areas that I can see.
-
how long has that handle bar rule been in
-
how long has that handle bar rule been in
I think it's just a proposal at the moment
-
This EVO class is getting all to hard
-
Fair dinkum Ted....you'd point holes in a donut! And to all the others who have followed on with Ted and his ridiculous mindless arguments and interpretations, have you even read the proposed set of rules?
I went to the effort of attempting to have a set of rules without any ambiguity as to what is and what isn't allowed in Evolution class racing. I even asked for the discussion to remain positive and to ad suggestions. Seems there is no keeping some people happy even though they agree the rules are very open to various interpretations.
Here are the proposed rules again. Amendments are highlighted in RED
1) Frame must be of ORIGINAL Manufacture twin shock design. Yamaha non linkage "monoshock" design is allowed. After market twin shock Replica era frames are allowed.
1b) NO re-engineering of linkage design frames converted to twin rear shocks in an attempt to comply are allowed.
2) Any fork, to a maximum of 44mm stanchion is allowed.
2a) Forks must be of ORIGINAL manufacture drum brake design.
2b) NO re-engineering of disc brake design forks in an attempt to comply are allowed.
2c) All forks must be of conventional type. NO USD forks are allowed
3) Brakes must be drum type, front and rear. No disc brakes.
4) Any Engine MUST be Aircooled and be from an original twin shock motocross/enduro frame motor cycle. Engines from Yamaha non linkage "monoshock" motocross/enduro frame motorcycles are allowed.
4b) Engines can be of Four or Two stroke design.
5) Replica after market swing arms are allowed.
6) Handle bars must be 7/8th cross bar design fitted with a protection pad.
6a) NO fat bar design handle bar is allowed.
7) Footpegs must be of the folding type with a self returning mechanism.
8) A chain guide/guard must be utilised and cover the point of chain return onto the rear drive sprocket.
9) All motorcycles must have an effective muffler/silencer fitted.
This is NOT about the CR Honda's. This is about trying to make a clear and concise set of rules to STOP all the BS that goes on just before National events and letting all concerned know, in black and white, what is and what isn't allowed. Regardless of what has been accepted as kosher in the past, there are still those that get their collective noses out of joint and make the current rules into whatever they see them to be.
Mate I like your rules and it looks like we need some in depth rules such as these to stop punters finding loop holes..
TBM, I like your take on a proposal for the rules as well. The only thing I can see after a quick look, is there is nothing that mentions what sort of carburettors or aftermarket reed blocks that are allowed.
To be honest, although I am dead against Dutch twinshock style bikes, I have never really had a problem with the use of any air-cooled motor in a frame originally manufactured with twin shocks (such as a CR480 in a CR250RA frame). I think that the Phil Denton Engineering big bore Hondas built for the visiting USA riders at the Farleigh Castle VMXDN are awesome looking machines and are still in my opinion within the spirit of the sport. But I do accept that my viewpoint on this is probably not shared by the majority of Evo class riders in Australia. So yes, I think the the wording of the rules proposed by TBM, clears up most of the grey areas that I can see.
I pretty much agree with you Mark and also like the Denton Hondas and it wouldn't bother me whether they were in or out..
-
Don't believe all you hear john, there's people out there that love causing shit even non members of the club !
-
3) Brakes must be drum type, front and rear. No disc brakes.
what if someone wants to fit a XS 650 front disc brake hub/caliper etc, lace it to 21" front rim and fit into TT500 forks for example? I have personally seen this on a bike which would have been done back in the day and is just one example but is a lot more period to me than some of the other mods people do.
Can the rules allow/would people want the rules to allow to use disc brakes from Evo legal or older class bikes but obviously still not allow discs from pre 85 bikes ofcourse.There were plenty of evo legal road bike disc front wheels that could be used.
Anyway its just a thought i had and was wondering what other people thought of this considering VMX is supposed to be about reliving the past,although i admit it would be a rare case that someone would want to do such a mod.
-
One other point the proposed rule changes form the Commission want to change the age groups for the Aust Post Classic MX & DT championships from the EVO classes to Pre 85. Is that what we want??????
Kevin
I don't think that putting the age group classes in pre '85, instead of Evo would be a very good idea. I think that there would be a wider spectrum of rider ages (and especially older riders) in Evo class than pre '85. You would end up with lots of guys in the younger age group, but not many in the older age groups, if it was moved to pre '85 classes.
-
how long has that handle bar rule been in
TBM's draft is just a proposal on this forum, on wording to remove the grey areas and I think is as good or better than anything else that I have seen on here. I personally don't have a problem with tapered bars on vintage bikes and I think that in the current rules, handlebars are classed as consumable items, so you can run whatever you want at the moment.
-
Without being rude (if possible) LWC, the basic rules of EVO are: DRUM BRAKES, air cooled, non linkage. Why does anyone have to bring up fitting XS650 disc brakes to an EVO bike?
K
-
One other point the proposed rule changes form the Commission want to change the age groups for the Aust Post Classic MX & DT championships from the EVO classes to Pre 85. Is that what we want??????
Kevin
I don't think that putting the age group classes in pre '85, instead of Evo would be a very good idea. I think that there would be a wider spectrum of rider ages (and especially older riders) in Evo class than pre '85. You would end up with lots of guys in the younger age group, but not many in the older age groups, if it was moved to pre '85 classes.
Taking the age groups away from Evo is a ridiculous proposal..The older eras need age groups as that's where many of the older guys are!
Just look at the over 50's races at the Toowoomba nats, bigger than several of the all in pre 85 and pre 90 classes!
This is another way of turning people away from the Evo class and just another ridiculous proposal from some Einstein without consulting any of the riders!
It's scary the direction this sport is headed...
-
I agree on the age comment.
-
Clarification, I agree that age groups should remain in Evo.
-
Ok, I'll join the pedantic few. Tapered bars are indeed a performance enhancing component regardless of what anyone says, as are MOST of the equipment we fit to our VMX bikes. I personally hate them & think they should be refused but that's my opinion and I'm not all bent up over it. The argument Ted is putting forward is that CR480 forks are a performance enhancement, maybe they are, maybe not so I'll argue the point to the extent of the pragmatic few on here. Tapered bars not allowed on that rationale. Stupid, stupid, fork*ING stupid, but an arguable point with absolutely no benefit to anyone but my own personal agenda.
Marks list is simple, but the simpler drum brake, air cooled, non linkage basics say it all anyway. I'm one for RC style big bore Honda's (I have one but have no desire to race it). I remember the phone call from a "concerned" person when it was just an idea in my head bleating that I wouldn't be able to ride it in VIPER. They SHOULD be evo legal IMO and are vastly different to the Dutch twin shocks. The fear mongering alluding to such bikes is utter BS. No-one is going to do that here, or fit an XR400 engine to a '79 CR frame or the like & turn up at a vintage meeting, get real.
K
-
It is interesting that people think if something has been used on a bike for a while it is now legit. There are any number of components on bikes that could be challenged and possible found to be in-eligible.
Here are some examples:-
1. Most billet parts
2. Modern Flat Slide carbies
3. Modern taper handle bars etc
4. Anything other than the standard parts (foot pegs, exhaust pipes and mufflers, wheels and hubs. Non standard alloy tanks etc, etc, etc.
5. Even the shocks we use should be the standard shocks or ones available back in the day. Emulator valves in forks aren't really legal but have become acceptable.
We all know it is impractical to say you can only use standard parts, so some clarification is needed. There are a whole lot of unwritten rules out there.
That is where the problem comes from. It is up to someone's interpretation and everyone does not have the same interpretation.
Kevin
-
Kev ,Get you facts right . We had 2 of our crs pulled up at the same nationals over taper bars and both where found to be legal (re Dave Tanner ) so please before you make these statements do your home work and get it right .
As for Bigk I don't like huskys but I don't get on here a bag them just because I don't like them , Am I lead to belive that if you don't like something it should not be allowed
-
I don't see where you've got that I've bagged anything other than the implied changes to the EVO rules (those we've yet to see, but have been alluded to by the protagonists). While I may prefer to ride Husky's Grant, I do particularly like the trick Hondas of which I have a few & also any nice bike (except maybe a Yamaha). I'm allowed to hate tapered bars just like you're allowed to love them. You're missing the point on that, but that's your interpretation.
K
-
Missed something here.
Can someone explain to me what are the advantages with Taper bars over the normal 7/8 bars ?
Thanks Andrew.
-
Missed something here.
Can someone explain to me what are the advantages with Taper bars over the normal 7/8 bars ?
Thanks Andrew.
Allegedly you can pick up a younger playmate at the gay bar if you run fat bars and black rims ;)
No place on a vintage bike >:(
-
No place on a vintage bike >:(
[/quote]
Ohh I see its not period correct or OEM.
Gotchya thanks :)
-
;D ;D ;D Up until 10 yrs ago fat bars were normal bars at chucking out time, when all the non porkers had pulled and gone home leaving the lard arses to lock up.
-
Again some people have misunderstood what I said. The current rule is "All components will come from the period the machine was manufactured"
When were the fat taper bars invented, I'm sure it wasn't in 1981 or 1989 even. I know we used solid alloy bars in 1977.
The rules need to be clarified better. The proposed changes don't do that, they open them up more.
Kevin
-
i have been racing evo bikes now for 15 years there was never a problem
with components yz465 forks and brakes are very hard to find so we used j forks
or cr forks with twin leading brakes, raced in state championships as well as aussie ones
never a problem, no later engines or usd forks just conventional forks drum brakes and std air cooled motor ,to think that people would build up cr500 rzs or a5 kx500 is stupid no one would do it a friend in melb built a kx a5 with a kx500 engine but he built it for pre 85 because he knew he couldnt ride it in evo THERE WAS NEVER A PROBLEM until people on the forum blew it out of proportion
it was never broken !!!!!
-
My Maico had the Fat bars on them originally when I first bought it but I quickly swapped them over
for a set of Jimmy Button 7/8 Renthals not because of the rules (Well I don't no the rules) but because I like the feel of them.
But apparently there is a performance gain according to Big K which I still cannot get my head around.
Ok, I'll join the pedantic few. Tapered bars are indeed a performance enhancing component regardless of what anyone says, as are MOST of the equipment we fit to our VMX bikes. I personally hate them & think they should be refused but that's my opinion and I'm not all bent up over it.
-
I for one am waiting for that answer ,
-
They are tougher, offer more flex and are easier on your arms, or so the sales pitch says. Real or placebo, who knows? Almost everything is a performance gain if you apply the same reasoning as those who want the rules changed. I don't give one iota about that though, they just look wrong on a VMX bike as do black rims & gobs of CNC machined billet alloy. Just my opinion like the opinion that others hold as to the legality of CR480 forks (which by the way are & always have been legal). Anyone get it yet?
K
-
They are tougher, offer more flex and are easier on your arms, or so the sales pitch says. Real or placebo, who knows? Almost everything is a performance gain if you apply the same reasoning as those who want the rules changed. I don't give one iota about that though, they just look wrong on a VMX bike as do black rims & gobs of CNC machined billet alloy. Just my opinion like the opinion that others hold as to the legality of CR480 forks (which by the way are & always have been legal). Anyone get it yet?
K
I agree Mick. Taper bars not only look totally out of place on an Evo machine, but they have been tested and proven by bike mags (I can't recall which one I read) do indeed offer less vibration because of the extra flex that is inherent to the style. Less vibration = less fatigue on the rider. Not that I really give a toss about the performance aspect, I just think they have no place on VMX bikes as they alter the "vintage" look of the bike.
Fair dinkum Ted....you'd point holes in a donut! And to all the others who have followed on with Ted and his ridiculous mindless arguments and interpretations, have you even read the proposed set of rules?
I went to the effort of attempting to have a set of rules without any ambiguity as to what is and what isn't allowed in Evolution class racing. I even asked for the discussion to remain positive and to ad suggestions. Seems there is no keeping some people happy even though they agree the rules are very open to various interpretations.
Here are the proposed rules again. Amendments are highlighted in RED
1) Frame must be of ORIGINAL Manufacture twin shock design. Yamaha non linkage "monoshock" design is allowed. After market twin shock Replica era frames are allowed.
1b) NO re-engineering of linkage design frames converted to twin rear shocks in an attempt to comply are allowed.
2) Any fork, to a maximum of 44mm stanchion is allowed.
2a) Forks must be of ORIGINAL manufacture drum brake design.
2b) NO re-engineering of disc brake design forks in an attempt to comply are allowed.
2c) All forks must be of conventional type. NO USD forks are allowed
3) Brakes must be drum type, front and rear. No disc brakes.
4) Any Engine MUST be Aircooled and be from an original twin shock motocross/enduro frame motor cycle. Engines from Yamaha non linkage "monoshock" motocross/enduro frame motorcycles are allowed.
4b) Engines can be of Four or Two stroke design.
4c) Carburetors must be round slide or period flat slide type.
4d) The use of aftermarket reed blocks is allowed.
4e) No hydraulic clutch mechanism can be used.
5) Replica after market swing arms are allowed.
6) Handle bars must be 7/8th cross bar design fitted with a protection pad.
6a) Any type of handle bar controls are allowed.
6b) NO fat bar design handle bar is allowed.
7) Footpegs must be of the folding type with a self returning mechanism.
8) A chain guide/guard must be utilised and cover the point of chain return onto the rear drive sprocket.
9) All motorcycles must have an effective muffler/silencer fitted.
This is NOT about the CR Honda's. This is about trying to make a clear and concise set of rules to STOP all the BS that goes on just before National events and letting all concerned know, in black and white, what is and what isn't allowed. Regardless of what has been accepted as kosher in the past, there are still those that get their collective noses out of joint and make the current rules into whatever they see them to be.
Mate I like your rules and it looks like we need some in depth rules such as these to stop punters finding loop holes..
TBM, I like your take on a proposal for the rules as well. The only thing I can see after a quick look, is there is nothing that mentions what sort of carburettors or aftermarket reed blocks that are allowed.
To be honest, although I am dead against Dutch twinshock style bikes, I have never really had a problem with the use of any air-cooled motor in a frame originally manufactured with twin shocks (such as a CR480 in a CR250RA frame). I think that the Phil Denton Engineering big bore Hondas built for the visiting USA riders at the Farleigh Castle VMXDN are awesome looking machines and are still in my opinion within the spirit of the sport. But I do accept that my viewpoint on this is probably not shared by the majority of Evo class riders in Australia. So yes, I think the the wording of the rules proposed by TBM, clears up most of the grey areas that I can see.
I pretty much agree with you Mark and also like the Denton Hondas and it wouldn't bother me whether they were in or out..
I have made a few more amendments. See 4c, 4d and 4e which address carburetors, reeds and clutches.
I also like the big bore twin shock Honda's and I would love seeing them on startlines in Australia BUT, I think that would open up a whole new debate regarding what year cut off would be implemented for other brands of engine as well as the Honda.
Again, this is just a draft and any feedback will be taken into account before a submission is made. I think it's about time the rules were written for the majority of racers.....
-
mmm..
I have fox replica yokes that are for 43mm forks so you can stuff a bigger set of forks in your front end and use a better brake.
I now have alloy steering stems that press straight into the lower yoke and have been made for the CR250 78-79.
Absolute things of beauty, titanium fittings as standard.
I will ask a mate to post pics of them on a separate thread to keep out of this one.
Pretty sure they are £400 for the whole lot (plus postage)