OzVMX Forum
Clubroom => General Discussion => Topic started by: BAHNZY on April 14, 2015, 06:27:02 pm
-
According to the 2015 Manual of Motorcycle Sport;
16.15.14.1 Acceptable for the pre 90 class are machines and components built up to and including the 1989 model.
The only exception to this rule is where the model remains unaltered after this date.
Question:
1. To what point is a bike deemed un-altered between two model years? Must it be identical save for graphics and a colour change?
2. How many cosmetic or minor changes to a year model tip the scale to make it ineligible?
Example:
The ABC motorcycle company produced bike/s in 1989 & 1990. For the most part the frame (& its geometry), the engine cases and internals, suspension speciation i.e. 40mm conventional forks and the main components of the bike were common however the bike received some minor upgrades such as;
The 1989 model had a Kayaba rear shock, a 38mm flat slide Keihen & a Nissan front brake calliper with a 260mm disc
But the 1990 model had a Showa rear shock, a 40mm flat slide Mikuni & a Brembo front brake calliper with a 260mm disc
3. Can a 1990 model (or later) machine be retrofitted to bring it back to a 1989 specification?
Example:
I see 1990 KX500’s that have had 1988/89 conventional forks retrofitted and run without issue in the Pre90 class
Please don’t turn this into another RM foot peg thread, it a fairly simple question that I and others have pondered on.
-
Like so many things, the rules are too vague for a definitive answer without going through the full MA judicial process, but here's a start:
1 & 2. If the changes are cosmetic, then they are irrelevant.
If the changes are to components that are free, then they are irrelevant.
In the case of your 89 vs 90 example, if the Brembo caliper and Mikuni flat slide existed as 89 model parts, then they'd be acceptable. The shock is irrelevant, because there's no restriction on later model shocks.
3. It's fine to back-spec a 2004 KX500 to 89 spec. The frame, engine, etc are all carry-over parts. The 2004 model parts that are different (forks, brakes, swingarm) must be changed back to the older parts.
-------
The above is using the generally accepted freedoms and restrictions - not all of which are actually part of the 2015 rule book....
-
what is the consensus on cr500s? Apart from suspension changes 89-01 are pretty much identical.
Does retro fitting a 89 or earlier front end bring it in line?
I have seen in the USA kx500s and cr5s are regarded as ok in the pre 90 equivalent class.
-
Like so many things, the rules are too vague for a definitive answer without going through the full MA judicial process, but here's a start:
1 & 2. If the changes are cosmetic, then they are irrelevant.
If the changes are to components that are free, then they are irrelevant.
In the case of your 89 vs 90 example, if the Brembo caliper and Mikuni flat slide existed as 89 model parts, then they'd be acceptable. The shock is irrelevant, because there's no restriction on later model shocks.
3. It's fine to back-spec a 2004 KX500 to 89 spec. The frame, engine, etc are all carry-over parts. The 2004 model parts that are different (forks, brakes, swingarm) must be changed back to the older parts.
-------
The above is using the generally accepted freedoms and restrictions - not all of which are actually part of the 2015 rule book....
Nathan. You amaze me. It has clearly been established that unless MA via the commission say a bike is a carry over model it is not. Ask MA.
A bike is only a carry over model if it is listed in the MOMS as such.
ASK MA not the forum!!!
-
Like so many things, the rules are too vague for a definitive answer without going through the full MA judicial process, but here's a start:
1 & 2. If the changes are cosmetic, then they are irrelevant.
If the changes are to components that are free, then they are irrelevant.
In the case of your 89 vs 90 example, if the Brembo caliper and Mikuni flat slide existed as 89 model parts, then they'd be acceptable. The shock is irrelevant, because there's no restriction on later model shocks.
3. It's fine to back-spec a 2004 KX500 to 89 spec. The frame, engine, etc are all carry-over parts. The 2004 model parts that are different (forks, brakes, swingarm) must be changed back to the older parts.
-------
The above is using the generally accepted freedoms and restrictions - not all of which are actually part of the 2015 rule book....
Nathan. You amaze me. It has clearly been established that unless MA via the commission say a bike is a carry over model it is not. Ask MA.
A bike is only a carry over model if it is listed in the MOMS as such.
ASK MA not the forum!!!
What about components?
Why does 16.15.14.1 read the way it does, if there are no Pre-90 carry overs?
Noting the relationship between 16.15.11.1 and 16.15.11.8...
And once again: properly written rules don't require people to ask MA. Properly written rules can be understood by anyone, without further questions, secret handshakes, or any of that guff.
-
Not sure if everyone is aware of the MOMS rule 2.5.10.1
Eligibility Scrutineer
"An eligibility scrutineer is a person appointed by the RCB or the promoter at a meeting comprising of events for historic or classic machines. The eligibility scrutineer has the authority to determine whether entered machines comply with the relevant eligibility regulations."
(EDITED)
-
The fact that Pre 70, Pre 75 & Pre 78 does have rules that state which models are acceptable follow on models in my opinion means that unless for the other section similar follow on models are stated they are not permitted.
This does not me that they can't be approved, but until MA does so (in my opinion) they are not approved.
ASK MA
-
<Snip>
Look, all of this shit goes away if the rules are clear. ALL of these discussions will very quickly wither and die, if the average punter can pick up the rule book and understand the rules.
That's all we need to make it all go away.
It's not like Bahnzy is a new-comer on the fringes of the sport, either.
-
Hi, with all the problems with regards to age based eligibility maybe we should be discussing guide lines for future classes, and maybe they should be technology based, as no real major advances have happened for a while,
maybe something along the lines of ; ,Conventional forks, or USD forks ,or steel frames,or alloy frames ,or two stroke or four stroke, Big four strokes and small two strokes combined , or fuel injected engines or any combinations of any of these technologies, a bit like the idea of Evo , not having an age basis for a class would allow those people who want to " reverse engineer" to make their idea of what is a "flow on model" to be allowed for that cut off date/technology
and very soon we will need to accommodate all these older four strokes that are going to be included in Vmx
I'm just saying,
cheers
-
Just so's you know what happened here.
I have previously made it clear that this sort of personal stuff and pointless back and forth is no longer welcome on the forum. The original question was reasonable, and would seem worthy of discussion.
So let's keep it to that. I am now going to delete all comments that breach my idea of what the forum is about. If you wish tom contribute to the thread and the original question, please do by addressing the facts with no personal opinion about people or motivations chucked in.
-
Hi, with all the problems with regards to age based eligibility maybe we should be discussing guide lines for future classes, and maybe they should be technology based, as no real major advances have happened for a while,
maybe something along the lines of ; ,Conventional forks, or USD forks ,or steel frames,or alloy frames ,or two stroke or four stroke, Big four strokes and small two strokes combined , or fuel injected engines or any combinations of any of these technologies, a bit like the idea of Evo , not having an age basis for a class would allow those people who want to " reverse engineer" to make their idea of what is a "flow on model" to be allowed for that cut off date/technology
and very soon we will need to accommodate all these older four strokes that are going to be included in Vmx
I'm just saying,
cheers
Good post.
IMO, we have three basic choices:
1. Use year cut-offs every half decade. Pre-60, Pre-65, Pre-70, etc.
2. Use year cuts offs that best correspond to technological eras. Pre-75, Pre-78, Pre-81, Pre-86, etc.
3. Use technology cut-offs, like Evo.
Currently, we have a mix of all three approaches - which is a big part of why there's so much confusion and uncertainty about what the rules are trying to achieve.
Personally, I think #2 is the best answer. Not the perfect answer: the best answer.
-
I love the way your preferred option leave the most successful EVO class bike in Pre 85.
It is too late to start this debate now. The time limit for rule change submissions for 2016 MOMS has passed.
However I do think if someone sent something in asking for models of bikes to be recognised as follow on models, there is a chance they might be considered.
Please remember in my opinion "follow on models" are those that haven't changed greatly eg new graphics. The best example of this from what I have been told is the 1990 model YZ 490 and possibly 91 as well.
-
It's remarkable that the Germans had the foresight to design a bike to be the best in a VMX class that wouldn't exist for another decade and a half...
We're pretty much stuck with what we have now - bikes have been bought and/or built to meet the current rules. Changing them significantly now would leave a lot of very unhappy punters.
-
Exactly. But we do need to clarify some things and maybe legitimism some things that have been let go.
Either way things need to change so that there is more than one person able to be eligibility scrutineer.
-
Nathan - need to be careful with #2 - don't want to disperse current number of available bikes into too many separate classes?
-
Agreed Ross. The eligibility rules of any existing class would have to be treated with kid gloves, if touched at all.
-
What about the 20 foot rule? If it looks right from 20 feet away, it is. Every class, every model. Bikes don't win races, riders do.
K
-
Get that rule put in the book, but use metric measurement.
-
Hi, I'm thinking if we are going to go , pre 90, pre 95, pre 2000 (OMG)
pre 2005, (WTF) and how will that work with two stroke and four stroke.
Are 95's so different from 94's
are 2000's so different from 1999's
are 2005's so different from 2004's
cheers
-
Hi, I'm thinking if we are going to go , pre 90, pre 95, pre 2000 (OMG)
pre 2005, (WTF) and how will that work with two stroke and four stroke.
Are 95's so different from 94's
are 2000's so different from 1999's
are 2005's so different from 2004's
cheers
Are 70 models so different to 69 models?
85s from 84s?
If we separate bikes on technology, then you consign lots of bikes to VMX irrelevance, despite being competitive bikes in their day.
The first Uni-Trak was rubbish, the first power valve did virtually nothing, the first front disc wasn't appreciably better than the drums, early USD forks are horrible, the 97 CR250 is a turd, etc. Then again, Full Floater was a clear step forward, nobody ever questioned the performance of cartridge forks, etc.
Presumably, when the currently modern bikes are VMX, the classes would be Lites/Opens as they are now.
-
I think there shouldn't be any carry overs. A 90 cr500 isn't that much different to an 89. Nor is a 91. Only a few more slight changes in 92 then 93.....
The cut off is the cut off imo.
The end.
-
Im curious ? Can anyone who post in this thread give a copy of a submission they have sent to MA for a rule change?
spot on mick
I think there shouldn't be any carry overs. A 90 cr500 isn't that much different to an 89. Nor is a 91. Only a few more slight changes in 92 then 93.....
The cut off is the cut off imo.
The end.
;) spot on to brad
-
What about the 20 foot rule? If it looks right from 20 feet away, it is. Every class, every model. Bikes don't win races, riders do.
K
EDIT.....If it looks right from 3.4 meters away!
I agree K. I don't see any point in going over any machine with a magnifying glass and a rule book if the bike looks like it belongs. If it's blatantly obvious that the bike has later model parts added that will improve it's performance, I'm sure those lined up in the same class will let the guy know that the bike is just not on.
At the end of the day, it would be neigh on impossible for any eligibility scrutineer to know everything about every era of machinery and it's components.
-
Is that 3.4 parking meters or water meters?
-
20 feet is 6.096 Metres
-
The question should be:
How many of you blokes commenting here even have a Pre-90 bike?
ie: why even care?
*opening popcorn*
FWIW I agree with Brad in that you cant race any 85+ model in Pre-85, so why the hell do some blokes think a 90 + model can be allowed in Pre-90?
Here comes 20 pages .... ::)
-
Hardo, you can race any Post-84 model bike that meets the criteria of a carry-over model.
You can race with any post-84 component that meets the criteria of a carry-over component.
This holds true for all eras.
---------
Imagine you had a 89 KX500, and a 91 KX500. Now pull both bikes to pieces and put all the parts into one big, mixed up pile.
Any component that can't be identified as being different between the two, is a carry over component.
-
Hardo, you can race any Post-84 model bike that meets the criteria of a carry-over model.
Nath... I did my best to ignore you.... but you got the better of me...
Can you tell me what bikes are "carry-over models" ie: 1985 + that are legal to race in Pre-85 class?
I was unaware there was such a thing .... but happy to be educated.
-
Hardo, you can race any Post-84 model bike that meets the criteria of a carry-over model.
Nath... I did my best to ignore you.... but you got the better of me...
Can you tell me what bikes are "carry-over models" ie: 1985 + that are legal to race in Pre-85 class?
I was unaware there was such a thing .... but happy to be educated.
Was I too subtle?
The rules allow carry-overs - this doesn't promise that there are carry-overs.
The fact that there are no (competitive) post-84 carry-over bikes doesn't stop there being legit post-84 carry-over components or post-89 carry-over bikes/components.
-
I will get in now before this post is closed. In my opinion any follow on models (not carry over) should be listed in the MOMS, same as Pre75 & Pre 78 etc. follow on are models that have not changed apart from maybe graphics or colour etc.
As for what submissions have been sent to MA ask them or wait until the commission minutes come out. Other than that ask your club what they submitted.
I won't comment on Ravenwood I wasn't there for financial reasons.
-
Just went through this thread again now. I started snipping and removing and then lost interest in trying to be even handed. I have deleted all posts not specifically about the actual original question, and locked this thread. I think the matter was discussed enough.