OzVMX Forum
Clubroom => Competition => Topic started by: Digga on December 03, 2014, 12:00:34 pm
-
Much like the never ending conflict in the middle east (which will probably drag on long after we are all dead & buried), the Evo saga threatens to do the same with no end in sight ::)
A suggestion:
Evo (Evolution) runs "as is" under current rules/guidleines as per MOM's & MA definition with air cooled, drum brakes, non linkage, no USD forks etc
Revo (Revolution) as above but you can pick & choose bits from anywhere, create your own Frankfurter thing but again must tick the same 4 key boxes
This should keep both factions happy, run together (scored separately) or run separate, numbers dependant. Have both officially recognized by MA as separate classes & should be easy at srcutineering as long as the Revo's dont try to sneak their way into Evo as entrants :o :o :o
Of course, an Evo could ride in a Revo event but not the other way around, much like a Pre 78 can ride up into Evo now (I am sure that question would be asked straight away)
This should foster a new and exciting group of innovative & creative genius while at the same time preserving the authenticity of the Evo class as it was intended & existed at the time.
Currently the ID letters used are A, N, H, X, Z, E, Y, W, so the letter R is free for the new Revo class ;)
Hmmm.......RRRRRRR (by chance) is also the same noise that Pirates make & a good insignia for those who choose to indulge in the new class ;D
-
Current MA definition is Revo
You would be better off calling it Current MA Evo rules and Pre December 2013 understanding of the Evo rules by the not so vast minority. You will need a very big banner though ;D
-
Thx Ted, I was just putting another idea out there in case it had merit with the hope that this fracture could be addressed & people can move on with a reasonable outcome to make most people happy.
The politics surrounding this issue is too deep for your average Joe punter like myself, just getting sick & tired of reading about it over & over & over.......again :(
-
The politics surrounding this issue is too deep for your average Joe punter like myself, just getting sick & tired of reading about it over & over & over.......again :(
That's an easy fix , don't read it ;)
I don't like fairy tales so I don't read the bible :)
-
It's all about bums on seats on start lines. Adjustments which will lead to this are necessary & an improvement.
K
-
Thx William Doe, TM Bill, Santa or whoever you really are ? ? ?
Yes, perhaps I will take your advice & I wont read it anyomore, good call, easy fix, thx
PS - have you tried the Koran yet, better reading than the bible (apparently) & much more topical nowdays, enjoy ;)
-
It's all about bums on seats on start lines. Adjustments which will lead to this are necessary & an improvement.
K
Well you're just about to find out at your Nats aren't you.
-
Sure will. Everything will be clear as mud.
K
-
I just don't get the need for an EVO or REVO. Back in the day you just raced. Personal opinion should just be by year pre 78, pre80, pre85 etc, whatever year period they make it, just ride it like you stole it. We all just ride the bikes we love. Everything is just too complicated for a sport based on fun and enjoying the era, personal opinion only
-
The EVO rules are fairly simple & ain't really broke, they just need some common sense tweaking. It's a great, generally well patronized class.
K
-
I just don't get the need for an EVO or REVO. Back in the day you just raced. Personal opinion should just be by year pre 78, pre80, pre85 etc, whatever year period they make it, just ride it like you stole it. We all just ride the bikes we love. Everything is just too complicated for a sport based on fun and enjoying the era, personal opinion only
Tossa you are welcome to your opinion mate. Like many of us, you are obviously here just to ride the bikes that you relate to and relive some of the fun of your youth. That is great and something most of us can understand completely. I suspect many forum goers are keeping out of this discussion because, like you, they are only here to ride their bike and have fun and this topic always brings people down it seems.
But this sport we enjoy has another completely different and very serious side to it and whilst many may never win an Australian Championship, there are some people that will, or could given the right circumstances, and they work hard at it. They choose to train, they choose to spend a lot of money on their bikes, they do whatever they can to to help them achieve their goals. Nothing wrong with that at all. Good on them I say but we can't ignore that side of the sport when issues like this come up. Our sport is goverened by Motorcycling Australia and the State Controlling Bodies, you have to be licensed, there are rules and regulations one must abide by. And when you add in the element of competition, club, state and national championships then it's a serious sport for some. At that point in time, you need to have very well defined rules.
I believe this topic has caused, and is still causing, a lot of angst due to ambiguity that has really not been resolved correctly for a number of reasons. At the end of the day none of us wish to see this confusion or rule ambiguity or anything else like it damage our sport any more than it already has :(
-
Point taken Simmo and respected
-
mmmm so my question on all this is simple...... if classic racing is about periods and representing historical racing and equipment as its primary focus, Then Evo which is now being referred to and structured as a make up of non period specific bikes ( sexmax optional) should it be moved out of classic racing and into modern MX and you can build what you like :) ?
Because in reality, it was invented as a catch all for early VMX riders to all ride in, be it prior to pre 85 getting legs and becoming a class, then , surely it was provided as a temporary class only to cover until natural bracket creep was able to move along. So maybe the question should be is Evo relevant anymore or should it actually be turned on its head and made to be consistent with every other class with a year cut off ? or should it just be killed off all together ?
The question must be if its not a historical depiction of something, then is it 1. Really vintage, 2. relevant or just a fun class ?
-
My 2c worth:
1. Evo as a historically relevant category as has been widely understood until recently is popular and well supported.
2. It has a large number of competitors who have built/bought bikes for the class. These people will be rightly pissed off if their bikes have to race against 84 models.
3. A significant of those competitors also have Pre-85 bikes, so absorbing Evo into Pre-85 will deny them an opportunity to ride at least one of their bikes.
4. I also believe that a most of the existing Evo competitors will be thoroughly pissed off if they have to compete against non-historic Evo bikes.
All of this indicates that we need to maintain a historically representative class for air-cooled, drum braked, non-linkage old bikes.
The "any age bike" version of Evo seems to be very poorly supported by VMX competitors, and clearly does not fit within the definition of "Classic Motocross". It may find support in the wider MX community, but it has no place under the Vintage umbrella.
The ONLY realistic way forward from here is to place an age limit on the Evo class. I would suggest that the existing rules are maintained, with an clause added to mandate that all major components are pre-1986 and carry-overs.
It could be pre-85 or any other year, but pre-86 allows the safety seat DT175s and the very last of the air-cooled, twin shock Husqvarnas (85 XC500?).
-
Would not be more simple to have a rule.
Air cooled drum brakes non linkage. All major components (eg forks brakes etc) Must come from same?
Is this not more or less what it is now? Been working OK for last 30 years.
-
Would not be more simple to have a rule.
Air cooled drum brakes non linkage. All major components (eg forks brakes etc) Must come from same?
Is this not more or less what it is now? Been working OK for last 30 years.
Absolutely would be however that idea has unfortunately been rejected numerous times by the Commissioner and god help any club that does not follow his interpretation of the rules because he has already put it in writing that he will sort them out. Link to that quote Here: http://forum.ozvmx.com/index.php?topic=36705.0
So like a few others, I'm currently looking around to find the best non linkage chassis that fits the new rules (thinking 2011/12 KTM PDS Linkless system as I should pick up one with a blown motor cheaply), the best aircooled motor for our shortened 10 minute races (can't decide whether a 92 WR500 motor is a better bet than an 84 CR500 or KX500 .. also considering an 99 XR600 but there are a few other options yet to look at) and if I go the KTM frame and non linkage suspension, I think the USD KTM forks will work well once I build the brake backing plate to fit the largest twin leading shoe front brake I can. Might even consider a 4 leading shoe front brake but not sure on that just yet as I am uncertain what can be laced into front rim.
I'm assuming that I can fit a 19 inch rear wheel to so I can choose from a better rear tyre ?
So many questions to answer but there is time and at the end of the day, I am looking forward to presenting my Frankenbike at the 2015 National Titles, complete with gun rider on board, and blowing the rest of the guys riding old skool evo shitters into the weeds. Yeehaa
-
I think you might be one of a crowd, Simo.
The real battle is who can get the best rider.
-
Would not be more simple to have a rule.
Air cooled drum brakes non linkage. All major components (eg forks brakes etc) Must come from same?
Is this not more or less what it is now? Been working OK for last 30 years.
Absolutely would be however that idea has unfortunately been rejected numerous times by the Commissioner and god help any club that does not follow his interpretation of the rules because he has already put it in writing that he will sort them out. Link to that quote Here: http://forum.ozvmx.com/index.php?topic=36705.0
So like a few others, I'm currently looking around to find the best non linkage chassis that fits the new rules (thinking 2011/12 KTM PDS Linkless system as I should pick up one with a blown motor cheaply), the best aircooled motor for our shortened 10 minute races (can't decide whether a 92 WR500 motor is a better bet than an 85 CR500 or KX500 .. also considering an 99 XR600 but there are a few other options yet to look at) and if I go the KTM frame and non linkage suspension, I think the USD KTM forks will work well once I build the brake backing plate to fit the largest twin leading shoe front brake I can. Might even consider a 4 leading shoe front brake but not sure on that just yet as I am uncertain what can be laced into front rim.
I'm assuming that I can fit a 19 inch rear wheel to so I can choose from a better rear tyre ?
So many questions to answer but there is time and at the end of the day, I am looking forward to presenting my Frankenbike at the 2015 National Titles, complete with gun rider on board, and blowing the rest of the guys riding old skool evo shitters into the weeds. Yeehaa
85 cr500 is water cooled
-
Go the XR 6. I will sell you the specs for a Glen Bell Replica XR 630 ;D
-
85 cr500 is water cooled
Typo. Fixed thanks :)
-
OMFG!!!! It's a long way to drive with your said "EVO" bike only to be deemed ineligible for any class at 2015 PC nats Simo as there's no modern classes in the program. Actually I'd really like someone to bring one along, no doubt we could all do with a laugh.
K
-
As long as its air cooled, drum braked and no linkage you have to let it in.
Quote : where you get the bits from doesn't matter
Quote: Evo has no period or era.
-
Continue to be completely & utterly ridiculous if you like. I DARE someone to bring something like that along to Ravenswood in April. Everyone will then get to see common sense in action & some one will be very, very disappointed.
K
-
So I turn up on a bike that complies to the rules in my last post just above and I am being ridiculous.
You and your mates in the supposed vast majority didn't have the sense to see this coming when you allowed a simple fork off a Pre 85 bike in. Instead of now seeing common sense and rescinding these later parts you'se come out and claim Evo has no period or era, thus allowing these anything from everywhere bikes in.
-
Continue to be completely & utterly ridiculous if you like. I DARE someone to bring something like that along to Ravenswood in April. Everyone will then get to see common sense in action & some one will be very, very disappointed.
K
Thanks BigK. Could you please explain to me where my proposed Evo championship winning bike has crossed the line? I believe it fits the exact criteria that we are now operating under?
It will be air cooled, have non linkage suspension and drum brakes. As the Commissioner's new interpretation has been quoted above, I am just not seeing the difference between my new bike and my old YZ250G fitted with a YZ250J front end?
Where have I gone wrong in my interpretation of the new rules?
-
There's simply no point talking any further. A modern KTM PDS chassis isn't classis, post classic or vintage. You guys are talking just to hear yourselves speak. Bring it along and as many of your like minded buddies as you can, bring a lawyer if you like. Be prepared to be laughed off the planet and leave your bike in the pits. Your proposal is stupidity at it's best. I'm not going to grace this with a response any further, other than to say see you with your idea of an "EVO" bike at the nats in April. I can't wait to see it.
K
-
There's simply no point talking any further. A modern KTM PDS chassis isn't classis, post classic or vintage. You guys are talking just to hear yourselves speak. Bring it along and as many of your like minded buddies as you can, bring a lawyer if you like. Be prepared to be laughed off the planet and leave your bike in the pits. Your proposal is stupidity at it's best. I'm not going to grace this with a response any further, other than to say see you with your idea of an "EVO" bike at the nats in April. I can't wait to see it.
K
All I want is an answer to my question. What part of the proposed bike doesn't comply?
All I've heard so far is that it's not vintage. No argument there but the rules don't say vintage. In fact they are not allowed to mention a year according to the Commissioner.
Just air cooled, non linkage and drum brake. The proposed bike complies ... unfortunately :(
-
Are you guys bored ;D
-
QUOTE : A modern KTM PDS chassis isn't classic, post classic or vintage
So tell me which class a VForce reed fits into Einstein. And yes they will be on lots of Evo bikes.
-
There's simply no point talking any further. A modern KTM PDS chassis isn't classis, post classic or vintage. You guys are talking just to hear yourselves speak. Bring it along and as many of your like minded buddies as you can, bring a lawyer if you like. Be prepared to be laughed off the planet and leave your bike in the pits. Your proposal is stupidity at it's best. I'm not going to grace this with a response any further, other than to say see you with your idea of an "EVO" bike at the nats in April. I can't wait to see it.
K
You know something K ... your suggestion about bringing a Lawyer has real merit. Merit because a lawyer would tear the current interpretation of Evo rules W_I_D_E open.
In fact I would go as far as betting that a good Lawyer WOULD easily get the proposed bike legally through based on the Commissioners current rule interpretation. An interpretation he has not only CLEARLY stated on this public forum, but one that he has also added a threat to for any club that denies a rider entry on a bike matching his interpretation.
That is how ridiculous this has got. And it's not for the better of the sport or any of the competitors.
It's a fiasco and it needs higher authority to sort it out.
-
The only fiasco .... in your words is on this forum.
-
I always thought EVO was short for evolution but I have figured out what it really means.
Extremely
Varied
Opinions
;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
The only fiasco .... in your words is on this forum.
maybe .... but it's coming to a track near you soon Stu :)
-
Or Extremely
Vague
Origins
:) :) :)
-
Jeez you blokes talk some shit ...
-
Bigk, we all agree it's ridiculous.
But read these threads:
http://forum.ozvmx.com/index.php?topic=36705.0
http://forum.ozvmx.com/index.php?topic=36721.0
Remember that "211" is David Tanner, chairman of the MA CMX commission...
What Simo (and others) have been saying fits perfectly with Mr Tanner's definition of the rules.
If you don't like it, then you need to join the chorus of "bored troublemakers" is opposing the stupidity of a non-historic vintage class.
-
Jeez you blokes talk some shit ...
think it might be cabin fever OF,(off season??) :P
-
Quote from BigK on the 24/10/2009
" If I have a set of 43mm YZ250J forks I can't run them legally in EVO coz they are from a bike with a linkage. Stupid in my opinion, but them's the rules. Same thing with engines"
Quote from BigK on the 8/7/2014
"Modern shocks, new billet shit, tapered bars, cartridge emulators etc have been deemed legal as have CR480 & horizontal lug yamaha forks. If my standard Honda forks are rusted to shit & will cost a motza to repair but I can replace them with cheap, functional 43mm forks that fit the era & work pretty much the same, why shouldn't I be allowed to? This is all absolute total BS. The forks are & have been legal for as long as the class exists"
This from the man that is organizing the 2015 Post Classic Nats
-
I'm with freaky, all other classes run in 5 year increments.
Get rid of pre 78, get rid of evo and introduce one pre 80 class.
Problem solved.
-
Quote from BigK on the 24/10/2009
" If I have a set of 43mm YZ250J forks I can't run them legally in EVO coz they are from a bike with a linkage. Stupid in my opinion, but them's the rules. Same thing with engines"
Quote from BigK on the 8/7/2014
"Modern shocks, new billet shit, tapered bars, cartridge emulators etc have been deemed legal as have CR480 & horizontal lug yamaha forks. If my standard Honda forks are rusted to shit & will cost a motza to repair but I can replace them with cheap, functional 43mm forks that fit the era & work pretty much the same, why shouldn't I be allowed to? This is all absolute total BS. The forks are & have been legal for as long as the class exists"
This from the man that is organizing the 2015 Post Classic Nats
But Ted the Vicar has changed the hymn sheet so the choir has to change its tune ::) ::)
You Aussies have and always have had arguably the best set of structured rules for vintage MX in the world .
There have always been a few ambiguity's within them but IMHO they are overall very good .
The weakness is the human factor ::) ::) primarily lack of support and communication from those who are supposed to oversee the sport ( to the point of mind forking with people )a lack of consistency at Scrutineering and the biggest issue forking EGOS .
For years everyone has been led to believe that only a small percentage of 43 mm forks were EGO legal and that air cooled motors from linkage bikes were not legal for EGO so any CR 450/480 or KX 400/420 twinshock hybrids had to run Pre 85 .
Big K has always been (up until 6 months ago ) probably the biggest critic on here of those rules . But now apparently the entire VMX community was wrong and they are EGO legal of course he is gonna be happy as would anyone else with a hybrid or later 43mm forks .
(personally i would like to see those CR / KX big bores in EGO, but i don't know how you would work it within the rules )
Any sport or recreation that has rules need people at the top who can manage and support the rank and file without bias and work for the betterment of the sport and admit when they are wrong .
If the Germans had the Aussie VMX template it would run like clockwork as in spite of their curt nature they would run to the letter of the rule and all officials and competitors would be properly informed and kept up to date .
-
"Modern shocks, new billet shit, tapered bars, cartridge emulators etc have been deemed legal as have CR480 & horizontal lug yamaha forks. If my standard Honda forks are rusted to shit & will cost a motza to repair but I can replace them with cheap, functional 43mm forks that fit the era & work pretty much the same, why shouldn't I be allowed to? This is all absolute total BS. The forks are & have been legal for as long as the class exists"
sounds pretty sensible to me - see you at the nats!
-
On the contrary Bill, I have always been of the opinion that common sense should prevail in the basic EVO rules of air cooled, non linkage & drum brakes which includes any conventional drum brake fork. I haven't taken twin shock CR480 to a meeting because I understand the implications even though I believe a 30 year old air cooled engine is a 30 year old air cooled engine be it from a 1982 CR480 (illegal) or a 1984 Husky CR500 (legal). Anyway we're off the point now, the people preaching about the 2015 EXC frame with an air cooled engine are just being absurd, there's no two ways about it.
Ted, I am not organizing the PC nats, it just happens that my local club is hosting it and I have an interest, although it's quickly dying from all this BS.
Simo, go ahead & bring your bike & lawyer, after all that's what VMX is all about isn't it?
K
-
Everyone is missing one important thing here. The actual ruling you are all talking about is in the regs for VMX. END OF STORY. A 2015 CHASSIS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY FIT INTO ANY INTERPRETATION OF VMX. The Bendigo club has put its hand up to run theses nats, and if people want to come along with some bitter and twisted idea about what can be interpreted as VMX and cause a shit fight just for the sake of it, then i'm sure the club will throw its hands in the air and say never again, and we lose another venue, and turn more riders off because of what is essentially bullshit.
-
311, you've missed the same point that bigk missed:
The Chair of the Commission has said that there is no age limit on Evo.
It's absurd. You know it. I know it. Simo knows it. Everyone knows it is absurd.
But the highest power in the land has decreed that these absurd, non-vintage bikes are legal for Evo.
So think about where the real problem is. ;)
-
On the contrary Bill, I have always been of the opinion that common sense should prevail in the basic EVO rules of air cooled, non linkage & drum brakes which includes any conventional drum brake fork. I haven't taken twin shock CR480 to a meeting because I understand the implications even though I believe a 30 year old air cooled engine is a 30 year old air cooled engine be it from a 1982 CR480 (illegal) or a 1984 Husky CR500 (legal). Anyway we're off the point now, the people preaching about the 2015 EXC frame with an air cooled engine are just being absurd, there's no two ways about it.
Ted, I am not organizing the PC nats, it just happens that my local club is hosting it and I have an interest, although it's quickly dying from all this BS.
Well we agree on a few things it seems. The CR480 motors should be illegal but if that's the case why shouldn't their 43mm TLS front end also be illegal? Just your interpretation or the Commissioners?
Speaking of interpretation, I see you've added some wording to the Commissioners original rule interpretation for Evo. You've now added in the words I have highlighted above "which includes any conventional drum brake fork". That was not specified by the Commissioners previous interpretation. Are you sure you have permission to do that?
Is that a sanctioned interpretation or just you exercising some common sense there K?? HOWEVER if that is the single rule that makes my proposed KTM PDS bike illegal in EVO then what you are now saying is the bike is good to go in Evo with a conventional front end? Hmm interesting. So any conventional front end that had a drum brake attached to it originally?
Anyway we're off the point now, the people preaching about the 2015 EXC frame with an air cooled engine are just being absurd, there's no two ways about it.
Correct. It is bloody absurd isn't it. But apparently completely legal in Evo according to the Commissioners new Interpretation that has been decreed all because the new ruling allowed people to ride with later model front ends (regardless of whether they provided any advantage at all) as it suited some people. I'm not sure who those people are but if those people didn't try to stretch the rules, the original Evo rules, the ones we all understood to be correct, then we wouldn't be in this mess.
Ted, I am not organizing the PC nats, it just happens that my local club is hosting it and I have an interest, although it's quickly dying from all this BS.
Simo, go ahead & bring your bike & lawyer, after all that's what VMX is all about isn't it?
K
Of course it's not K but that's where you end up when the rules are changed or interpreted incorrectly. Mate with all due respect do you honestly think I'm going to build that stupid bike? Of course I'm not. But if I did do you honestly think I would present that stupid bike to any race meeting, let alone an event that you and the Commissioner were officiating at?? Again, of course I'm not but someone might and according to the rules as promulgated by the Commissioner, then that bike should pass as it he has clearly stated in previous posts here, it needs to be air cooled, non linkage and drum braked .. regardless of where the parts come from and regardless of their age or vintage.
Ridiculous eh!!
-
Ok, so we all have different ideas & seem to be missing some point or another. I have just spoken to the captain in charge of the PC nats and quote: "the EVO classes will run as per the rule book & any gray area's open to interpretation will be decided in the spirit of vmx. Common sense will prevail".
BMCC will endeavor to have the GCR's set very soon so it gives everyone time to make an informed decision as to whether you want to ride your OLD bike at the event or not. Pretty simple, just wait for the GCR's & decide for yourself.
No need to debate the semantics of the rule book.
K
-
Unfortunately common sense cannot come into it as one persons idea of common sense can be entirely different to the next person .
Yes of course all this talk of late model hybrids is ridiculous, but as they keep saying legal by the rules as they stand .
Problem with leaving grey areas is that it leads to Mateship among officials , and if you have kissed the right arses your in if not your out ::)
Clear and concise definitions of what acceptable so everybody understands is what's required and is all that has ever been required :)
-
Over the past 4.0 years I have been asked asked very often , why don't you and your crew practice MX anymore and most importantly why don't we see you and your crew at every VMX meeting .
"Short answer is" why would you support rubbish like this.
-
Clear and concise definitions of what acceptable so everybody understands is what's required and is all that has ever been required , but then apparently the mind forking option is much more fun ::)
And that is exactly where the problem lays....
Even though there was ample input from interested parties the commission apparently chose to ignore any, or all of those suggestions and left us with a whole new world of ambiguity with an arguably un-workable set of way too simple rules.
It seems the rules are now open to all sorts of interpretation and at the end of the day, it's up to the eligibilty scrutineer to insert their interpretation of what's acceptable and what isn't.
Allowing a set of later model, conventional drum brake forks didn't cause all this kuffafle. The wording of the rules caused it.
Apparently, 43mm forks have always been regarded as kosher in the Evo class. And in my view, so they should, on the basis that it was legal to fit Kayaba 43mm conventional forks with TLS drum brakes to any bike but some deemed and argued that it was not kosher to use 43mm Showa forks with essentially the exact same set up based simply on date of manufacture. Yet, and here's the elephant in the room, if you could find and afford a set of 44mm Fox Factory forks, you could run them on any bike you like.
As for the 45 degree brake lug or the Horizontal brake lug on the Yamaha Kayaba fork, who cares. They are both essentially the same fork at the end of the day.
-
Ok, so we all have different ideas & seem to be missing some point or another. I have just spoken to the captain in charge of the PC nats and quote: "the EVO classes will run as per the rule book & any gray area's open to interpretation will be decided in the spirit of vmx. Common sense will prevail".
BMCC will endeavor to have the GCR's set very soon so it gives everyone time to make an informed decision as to whether you want to ride your OLD bike at the event or not. Pretty simple, just wait for the GCR's & decide for yourself.
No need to debate the semantics of the rule book.
K
You might want to have a chat with the key people from the 2014 PCMXNs. They aimed for something similar, and were shot down in no uncertain terms.
99.99% of Aussie VMXers agree with what you're saying. The 0.01%, and the position he holds, is the roadblock to commonsense.
Until that roadblock is removed, we have to live with the ridiculous situation where Evo is not a historic class - and as the host of the Post-Classic National Title meeting, you must follow what is in the book. And where there is ambiguity, the Commission gets the final say: and the Chair of the Commission has made it abundantly clear that he thinks there is no age restriction on Evo.
This is not about commonsense. It is about procedure. And in this case, procedure can kick commonsense's arse.
-
Nathan, I would like to know if this anything from anywhere interpretation is coming from:
(1) 211... VMX participant
or
(2) David Tanner. MA Commissioner. With the full understanding, knowledge and backing from Motorcycling Australia
Because if it is (2) the Evolution class would have to be struck from CMX as you rightly say.
-
Well, unless Mr Tanner is playing games with us all, you'd have to assume that he's speaking as Chair of the CMX Commission. Apart from anything else, he's repeatedly referred to his role as part of the Commission - if there's a conflict between what the commission has decided and his personal point of view, then he has given every reason to believe that he's presenting the official CMX Commission position.
A large part of the point of having commissions is that the commission becomes MA's brains trust for the particular branch of the sport. If there's a question about how Evo should be defined, MA will turn to the Commission for the answer.
So basically: what 211 says, is gospel...
The only way to change this is to have the rules rewritten to remove the ambiguity, or remove the commissioner(s) who are enforcing the "lacking in commonsense" interpretation of the rules.
-
Nathan instead of guessing what DT is up to why not ring him?
-
Well, unless Mr Tanner is playing games with us all, you'd have to assume that he's speaking as Chair of the CMX Commission. Apart from anything else, he's repeatedly referred to his role as part of the Commission - if there's a conflict between what the commission has decided and his personal point of view, then he has given every reason to believe that he's presenting the official CMX Commission position.
A large part of the point of having commissions is that the commission becomes MA's brains trust for the particular branch of the sport. If there's a question about how Evo should be defined, MA will turn to the Commission for the answer.
So basically: what 211 says, is gospel...
The only way to change this is to have the rules rewritten to remove the ambiguity, or remove the commissioner(s) who are enforcing the "lacking in commonsense" interpretation of the rules.
I will respond to this in a separate thread in the correct place.
-
Well, unless Mr Tanner is playing games with us all, you'd have to assume that he's speaking as Chair of the CMX Commission. Apart from anything else, he's repeatedly referred to his role as part of the Commission - if there's a conflict between what the commission has decided and his personal point of view, then he has given every reason to believe that he's presenting the official CMX Commission position.
A large part of the point of having commissions is that the commission becomes MA's brains trust for the particular branch of the sport. If there's a question about how Evo should be defined, MA will turn to the Commission for the answer.
So basically: what 211 says, is gospel...
The only way to change this is to have the rules rewritten to remove the ambiguity, or remove the commissioner(s) who are enforcing the "lacking in commonsense" interpretation of the rules.
I will respond to this in a separate thread in the correct place.
There has been many threads on this topic. Interested to know what is the correct place?
-
Page 8 of the moms .... will tell you who the chair person is ( in Bold )
-
Correct place was page 27- 28 of the MOMs
-
Well, unless Mr Tanner is playing games with us all, you'd have to assume that he's speaking as Chair of the CMX Commission. Apart from anything else, he's repeatedly referred to his role as part of the Commission - if there's a conflict between what the commission has decided and his personal point of view, then he has given every reason to believe that he's presenting the official CMX Commission position.
A large part of the point of having commissions is that the commission becomes MA's brains trust for the particular branch of the sport. If there's a question about how Evo should be defined, MA will turn to the Commission for the answer.
So basically: what 211 says, is gospel...
The only way to change this is to have the rules rewritten to remove the ambiguity, or remove the commissioner(s) who are enforcing the "lacking in commonsense" interpretation of the rules.
I will respond to this in a separate thread in the correct place.
Far out Dave .. I cannot believe you can make that "Dave Tanner's Response" post, bully people and then lock it so nobody can respond to your assertions and claims. Do you really think that shows integrity?
Here is some integrity for you Dave. I called MA today to complain about YOU and how you are going about changing the rules of Evo to suit yourself. I think the way you have gone about your role in this whole issue is disgraceful going right back to the grenades you dropped before the Nats last year up until now and I will include your locked "response". After the way you conducted yourself at that time I don't believe the organisers wanted you to have anything to do with the event last year and you know it. Unfortunately they had no choice.
You have threatened and bullied clubs with your statements, you have changed well understood interpretation of existing rules to suit yourself and when genuinely questioned over your position, you have locked threads and attacked the people asking the questions. Yes you have attacked the man calling them narcissistic and pathetic. As a Commissioner you should be ashamed of yourself.
During my conversation with MA today I was asked to make a formal submission which I will be doing over the next few days. I plan to get it there in time for it to go to the Board meeting on 18th December.
-
Simo63
Im curious to know why you think Dave has changed the rules to suit himself? What is his motivation?
-
Simmo - make it factual, make sure you are accurate - you know I will defend myself.
Its all a matter of public record Simmo - do you research.
-
Simo63
Im curious to know why you think Dave has changed the rules to suit himself? What is his motivation?
He hasn't changed the rules to suit himself. He's dogmatically stuck by the rules he wrote many years ago, because he is so convinced by their perfection and so unwilling to admit that they could be better.
He's now argued himself into a corner, where they are (apparently) still perfect, but now aren't rules for a VMX class at all.
That's what is killing me - its not about the good of the sport, its about his ego (and yet he calls everyone else "narcissists")...
-
Cant you read Nathan......
If you stopped to read the documents for long enough then you would clearly understand what happened. Right now you just don't know what your on about mate - sorry.
-
Simmo - make it factual, make sure you are accurate - you know I will defend myself.
Its all a matter of public record Simmo - do you research.
I will Dave as I know you will defend yourself but I can only write it from my perspective. I do not know of all the goings on and that has led to much of my frustration. I am more than happy to discuss/debate and even respectfully argue with you on the points around your interpretation of the rules however you have chosen not to do that. Rather you write stuff, lock threads, call us Narcissistic and Pathetic when we ask questions and for clarification. That's the disappointing thing Dave, you could have handled this so much better however I know you won't admit that because its now a matter of pride, not fact anymore.
To say that I am bitterly disappointed this has gone to this stage is the biggest understatement you could make. Never before have I been moved to respond like this and I find that I am almost attacking you in response. That's not how I want to be but all I can do is openly tell you that I think you are so far wrong with your interpretation that you are opening up the class to all sorts of rubbish .. hence my ridiculous PDS KTM suggestion. According to your written interpretation of the evo rules, such a hybrid bike is evo legal.
-
Hey, anyone else notice the William Doe, and the Ted have,pulled there heads in as soon as Dave gets on here, does that mean, job done for them, stiring the EVO pot that is,suppose poke the stick enough and yeah get a reaction. Well done boys ;)
-
I started this thread & if you go back a few pages & read it, you will see it was a suggestion to accomodate both arguements or factions within the Evo class. As usual, got out of control & the level of bitching has gone through the roof (yet again) to the point that most people I guess are sick of it :(
I was only offering a suggestion as a solution, not to open up the old wounds & launch another round table on this eligibilty issue. I have an Evo class bike that I bought to restore to its original condition to the best of my ability & budget. I have not substitued parts here & there but sourced or re-built as per original. Thats just my situation & I race it, have fun & enjoy the whole VMX thing ;D
So, again, I am not asking to resolve the "issue" but trying to help find a workable solution/outcome.
To steal a process from one design high performance yacht racing (Super Senior Col will relate to this), they hold nats every year, usually in a different state each year & prior to the event (usaully a day or 2 before), state delegates meet to discuss their sport/class, proposed changes, issues etc.
I have never been involved in the actual process but you get to read their minutes etc & the member community are well informed of the outcomes. I have seen changes proposed & introduced to a class that is 80 or so years old & seems to work well (albeit only an annual opportunity to visit the process).
So my point is that maybe this same or similar method could be adopted with the VMX community & a forum could be held the day prior to the CVMX & PCVMX titles with 1 (1 only) delegate from each state + the commissioner or National president or whoever is at the top of the tree? Submissions are formally submitted a month or so prior so that all parties are well informed & the process begins & ends in the one day. Things are either approved or rejected & then usually polished up & resubmitted the next year with no guarantee they will ever get through, but things do evolve.
So just another idea, food for thought about the process, not the issue ::)
-
Digga
good comparison to make - if you ever wondered how I know Colin, he made sails for my wife in the 80s and 90s when she was a sailor in the Olympic 470 class; I was the Australian class measurer (chief scrutineer) and very involved in the process and raced in the 505 class myself. The big difference then was you needed a lawyer in the protest room and we don't want that.
Vicki never went to the Olympics but finished 2nd in the 88 and 92 selection regattas eventually winning the 94 worlds in a Hobbie 16 in France when they were being trailed for the 96 Olympics.
Colin is a 2 x World Sailing Champion - they don't call him the king of the kids for no good reason.
On the VMX debate - would be happy to talk about it when or if you want - send me your # in a PM. What you describe is what we already have.
211
-
Hey, anyone else notice the William Doe, and the Ted have,pulled there heads in as soon as Dave gets on here, does that mean, job done for them, stiring the EVO pot that is,suppose poke the stick enough and yeah get a reaction. Well done boys
shouldn't you be building another girls trailbike to bullshit yourself your going quick on Graham :-* :-*
Good one Bill - another pointless post.
-
Hey, anyone else notice the William Doe, and the Ted have,pulled there heads in as soon as Dave gets on here, does that mean, job done for them, stiring the EVO pot that is,suppose poke the stick enough and yeah get a reaction. Well done boys
shouldn't you be building another girls trailbike to bullshit yourself your going quick on Graham :-* :-*
OOOH, does the truth hurt Willi :'(
-
Hey, anyone else notice the William Doe, and the Ted have,pulled there heads in as soon as Dave gets on here, does that mean, job done for them, stiring the EVO pot that is,suppose poke the stick enough and yeah get a reaction. Well done boys
shouldn't you be building another girls trailbike to bullshit yourself your going quick on Graham :-* :-*
OOOH, does the truth hurt Willi :'(
No mate and thats the fundamental difference between the likes of you and me .
I will accept the truth good or bad where as the likes of you are so busy kissing arse that you wouldn,t see the truth if it up and bit you .
-
Dave
Wasnt suggesting that we visit the dark side of yachting protest rooms (been there, done that aaahh), but just the annual process prior to the nats as a good way to facilitate & discuss such ideas/proposals/issues in a formal, behaved face to face meeitng. If you are happy that this already happens within the current VMX structure, then all good, cheers.
BTW - Australian Sharpie mainsheet hand ;)
-
was that light weight or heavy weight sharpies - raced you guys in the 505, was always close
-
Lightweight Sharpies but I'm now a heavyweight ;D
-
Cant you read Nathan......
If you stopped to read the documents for long enough then you would clearly understand what happened. Right now you just don't know what your on about mate - sorry.
Once again, you're playing games. Latest publically available minutes are from May.
So how about a link?
-
Digga's mention of yacht racing reminds me of Alan Bond's American Cup challenge and how the American's were so determined to see Australia's winged keel boat disqualified as 'outside the rules'.
They, (the yanks/organisers) went legal to exclude it, but it passed and raced, as it did fit the wording of the rules as they stood.
-
Hey, anyone else notice the William Doe, and the Ted have,pulled there heads in as soon as Dave gets on here, does that mean, job done for them, stiring the EVO pot that is,suppose poke the stick enough and yeah get a reaction. Well done boys
shouldn't you be building another girls trailbike to bullshit yourself your going quick on Graham :-* :-*
Good one Bill - another pointless post.
Thanks Dave :) mate unlike a lot of people on here i am able to differentiate between you the person and you in your official role .
As a person i have seen you the passionate enthusiast who clearly loves old bikes :)
As a competitor i have experienced your petty power play first hand, that convinced me never to enter another competitive VMX event in Australia as long as you hold office :(
-
I usually find these endless Evo debates to be pretty dull reading but that's just me. I know it's an issue many feel passionate about. However, as per usual, they degenerate into mud-slinging and playing the man. If someone has some useful and constructive suggestion n how to improve things rather than raking over old coals, go for it.
But you'll need to start a new thread for that.
This thread closed.