OzVMX Forum
Clubroom => Competition => Topic started by: Ted on December 14, 2015, 02:21:07 pm
-
On the MA website
Pre 75: NO reed valves permitted.
If you own a Husky mag, Pre 75 YZ or DT it's off to Evo for you.
Evo:
A date of Pre 90 has been placed on Evo. So while it must be air cooled, drum braked and non linkage you can source all components from up to and including a Pre 90 bike including the U.S.D. Fork
All eras:
Engines and gearboxes must be externally unchanged has had a line drawn through it and is no more.
Well done the rule makers at MA. You have just signed the death warrant for your own title events
-
WTF!?!??
Funny how... "fluid" some things can be...
-
if correct all those GEM fitted CRs are out also.
Nick - are you around?
-
On the MA website
Pre 75: NO reed valves permitted.
This is unbelievable Ted. I'll have to find a DT1 cylinder for my Yamaico and R5 cylinders for my RD.
This goes against all the fundamentals of the sport. What next, ban '81 490 Maicos because they're too good?
-
Evo and engine appearance change makes good sense. A hell of a lot more workable than trying to prescribe or proscribe these contentious areas. Well done MA. Reed valve restriction is stupidity incarnate.
-
have just written to the technical gurus at MA has Dave recommended before. If correct this means I have no where to ride my YZB as it also does not qualify for pre 78 - and not going later than that :'(
Will see what they come back with.
Rossco
-
Evo and engine appearance change makes good sense. A hell of a lot more workable than trying to prescribe or proscribe these contentious areas. Well done MA. Reed valve restriction is stupidity incarnate.
I disagree on the Evo thing.
While the clarification is welcome and long overdue, I don't think ANYONE wanted this.
The class was always supposed to be about the bikes that were made uncompetitive by linkage rear ends, disc brakes and water cooling. Now those bikes risk being made uncompetitive by FrankenBikes that have no historical precedent, and do not represent ANY era.
And for what gain? To make a small number of bikes that are fitted with 86-89 Honda cartridge forks legal? The juice does not seem to be worth the squeeze.
-
and the technical email address for MA no longer exists - bugga
-
WTF? I think most people wanted some common sense applied to the rules, but there ain't none there that I can see. Pre' 75 rule is just plain stoopid, Evo rule pretty much the same, no-one wants to see an EVO bike with USD forks. Obviously no-one in MA listens intently or rides any sort of VMX. The can of worms just got a whole lot wrigglier.
K
-
The Classic Motocross and Dirt Track commissioners are listed as Dave Tanner, Shane Fraser, Kerry Marsh and Nick Maxfield, all of whom have been on here at some stage. Perhaps they may care to enlighten us as to the process here.
Among their powers is the recommendation of GCR rule changes only after consultation with SCBs and State sub-committees. But I can't say I've heard of anyone whacking in a remit to can reed valves.
They have kind of contradicted themselves a couple of lines later in rule 13.14.4.9 (b) by listing the YZ360B and DT250B as acceptable follow-on models... 8)
-
Evo and engine appearance change makes good sense. A hell of a lot more workable than trying to prescribe or proscribe these contentious areas. Well done MA. Reed valve restriction is stupidity incarnate.
I disagree on the Evo thing.
While the clarification is welcome and long overdue, I don't think ANYONE wanted this.
The class was always supposed to be about the bikes that were made uncompetitive by linkage rear ends, disc brakes and water cooling. Now those bikes risk being made uncompetitive by FrankenBikes that have no historical precedent, and do not represent ANY era.
And for what gain? To make a small number of bikes that are fitted with 86-89 Honda cartridge forks legal? The juice does not seem to be worth the squeeze.
Yes Nathan, but I have 2 sets of those Honda cartridge forks so I will be able to build the legal XR/CR I have underway using them and the CR480 front brake. I'm sure I'm not alone with that combination.
-
The Classic Motocross and Dirt Track commissioners are listed as Dave Tanner, Shane Fraser, Kerry Marsh and Nick Maxfield, all of whom have been on here at some stage. Perhaps they may care to enlighten us as to the process here.
Among their powers is the recommendation of GCR rule changes only after consultation with SCBs and State sub-committees. But I can't say I've heard of anyone whacking in a remit to can reed valves.
Could be a typo? Reeds that came as standard only permitted.
-
WTF? I think most people wanted some common sense applied to the rules, but there ain't none there that I can see. Pre' 75 rule is just plain stoopid, Evo rule pretty much the same, no-one want to see an EVO bike with USD forks. Obviously no-one in MA listens intently or rides any sort of VMX. The can of worms just got a whole lot wrigglier.
K
Michael, will you still be happy with Evo when the cut off date is Pre 95 and then Pre 2000 and so on as newer classes are introduced. It will be an ever evolving era, not vintage at all.
They do not care and are just not listening. Submissions and asking clubs what they want is a total waste of our time.
-
The Classic Motocross and Dirt Track commissioners are listed as Dave Tanner, Shane Fraser, Kerry Marsh and Nick Maxfield, all of whom have been on here at some stage. Perhaps they may care to enlighten us as to the process here.
Among their powers is the recommendation of GCR rule changes only after consultation with SCBs and State sub-committees. But I can't say I've heard of anyone whacking in a remit to can reed valves.
Could be a typo? Reeds that came as standard only permitted.
Its written in bold print. No typo here
-
and is repeated in a couple of areas as well.
-
Well, there will be a lot of reed valve Huskys missing at the titles in Qld this year because of that rule change :-\
-
So the poor under competitive 1974 125cc Hodaka Super Combat with OEM reed valve now has race in Pre78 too?????????
Sad, even taking into the obvious curses of older age and shitty health, any wonder me and well, lots of others from earlier VMX years , are dispersing off to follow other pastimes. Seems the powers that be just to want to just piss us off ..... permanently..... Tim754
Now I am off to work on my 45mm (Gauge 1 or "G" gauge) Garden Railway I am building in the backyard. Actually right on the area where I taught my sons and daughter to ride the Z50a all those years ago. ;)
-
Fair suck on the sauce bottle MA!
And there I was stupidly thinking that there was going to be some sensible changes made.
Where the hell did these set of rule changes conjure up from? Is it just to piss the punters off with even more ambuguity, again?
There is absolutely no sense in not allowing reed valves in Pre75. Not only are the Husky's sent to the junk pile, but all those with GEM reeds etc. that took ages to get running right are now obsolete. Just for the record, the cylinders for those bikes with aftermarket reeds are useless without the reeds. They are ported to work with reeds. And what about the bikes with OEM rotary valve set ups? STUPID!
As for Evo having a cut off date of Pre90, what the hell purpose does that serve? Just as a quick guide, I can now take a 1989 CR250, modify the swingarm and sub frame for twin shocks, use drum brake hubs, stick an air cooled CR500 motor in it and go racing.....no questions asked! WTF?
Welcome to pommy land racing folks!
Another question....What will happen to the booming Pre90 class now that those bikes can be butchered out of existence?
Stay away from the blue pills and go back to the red ones FFS.
-
You'll be in Evo Tim. Only 75/76/77 in Pre 78
-
"You'll be in Evo Tim. Only 75/76/77 in Pre 78" umm Thanks Ted for the correction .... think I'll have to pass on that one :o :o :o ::)
-
Just canceled the holidays between CD and the Ozzie titles, will be just going to CD now and not staying up in Qld for the "titles"
-
I should of kept the KTM USD drum brake fork I sold 2 weeks ago. Would of gone well on the CR250RZ
-
Fair suck on the sauce bottle MA!
And there I was stupidly thinking that there was going to be some sensible changes made.
Where the hell did these set of rule changes conjure up from? Is it just to piss the punters off with even more ambuguity, again?
There is absolutely no sense in not allowing reed valves in Pre75. Not only are the Husky's sent to the junk pile, but all those with GEM reeds etc. that took ages to get running right are now obsolete. Just for the record, the cylinders for those bikes with aftermarket reeds are useless without the reeds. They are ported to work with reeds. And what about the bikes with OEM rotary valve set ups? STUPID!
As for Evo having a cut off date of Pre90, what the hell purpose does that serve? Just as a quick guide, I can now take a 1989 CR250, modify the swingarm and sub frame for twin shocks, use drum brake hubs, stick an air cooled CR500 motor in it and go racing.....no questions asked! WTF?
Welcome to pommy land racing folks!
Another question....What will happen to the booming Pre90 class now that those bikes can be butchered out of existence?
Stay away from the blue pills and go back to the red ones FFS.
The 250 Sexmax and Open class Tedmax will be in stores early January. Taking orders now.
-
Just canceled the holidays between CD and the Ozzie titles, will be just going to CD now and not staying up in Qld for the "titles"
Lucky I grew tired of 2 strokes and have a couple of four bangers to ride or I'd be in the same boat
-
13.14.6.2 Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed.
-
The 250 Sexmax and Open class Tedmax will be in stores early January. Taking orders now.
And there we all were thinking that you and Nathan were just stirring S&%t all that time..... It is now a stark reality >:(
-
13.14.6.2 Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed.
"later equipment" would now be anything manufactured after 31/12/89
-
If it doesn't bolt on without modification, then it won't pass.
The Pre 75 Reed exclusion is rather curious though, and not very well thought out.
-
13.14.6.2 Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed.
Correct Greg. But if you start with a 89 model nothing before that is later equipment. You simply take your 89 frame and modify it, as it is current, not later. Remove the linkage shock setup and engineer a non linkage shock in its place. Dead fukn easy to do.
And then there is the carryover clause written in the rules. Use a 2000 XR 630 motor. Dead fukn easy as well.
How do you feel about your 250 B being bumped up to Evo now? A 74 racing against 89's. Sounds about right
-
If it doesn't bolt on without modification, then it won't pass.
The Pre 75 Reed exclusion is rather curious though, and not very well thought out.
Bullshit. An XT, TT , XR motor in any frame, not particularly it's own, is permissible now and always has been.
-
"You simply take your 89 frame and modify it,"
Gong!
Guess I might have to use the old DT1 pistons when I take the reeds out of the YZB..........
Hoping that rule will be clarified/modified before the Nationals.
-
13.14.6.2 Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed.
"later equipment" would now be anything manufactured after 31/12/89
Not necessarily Mark. It lists carryover models are fine. A XR 2000 motor is the same as a 88. Especially with the other deletion about external motor changes don't matter. So does the cut off period become 2000. The rules state components don't need to be of period of manufacture.
-
13.13.6.6 A chain guard made of suitable material
must be fitted in a way to prevent trapping
between the lower drive chain run and the
final drive sprocket at the rear wheel.
Silly covers are off the agenda again.
Might come back in 2017 though given the past yearly pattern.......
-
"You simply take your 89 frame and modify it,"
Gong!
Guess I might have to use the old DT1 pistons when I take the reeds out of the YZB..........
Hoping that rule will be clarified/modified before the Nationals.
Fukn oath you modify it. But it still remains current equipment, not later. The rules state later equipment, not current.
-
yer but no valve caps now too saving weight
-
"You simply take your 89 frame and modify it,"
Gong!
Guess I might have to use the old DT1 pistons when I take the reeds out of the YZB..........
Hoping that rule will be clarified/modified before the Nationals.
Fukn oath you modify it. But it still remains current equipment, not later. The rules state later equipment, not current.
Sigh. Yes, you are correct.
Looks like the rules weren't thought about in relationship to each other.
Given the prior rule change, rule "13.14.6.2 Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed." probably should have been altered to "13.14.6.2 Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed." to take into account the frankenbike scenario.
Apologies Ted.
-
"You simply take your 89 frame and modify it,"
Gong!
Guess I might have to use the old DT1 pistons when I take the reeds out of the YZB..........
Hoping that rule will be clarified/modified before the Nationals.
Fukn oath you modify it. But it still remains current equipment, not later. The rules state later equipment, not current.
And that is the kicker right there...... There is no mention of not being able to modify "current" equipment. No reading between lines, no thinking it means anything other than what is written as rules. Hmm, XR630 motor, 89 Husaberg frame, drum brakes, PDS rear suspension.....
My, what have the idiots done.... No offense commissioners, you're all great guys to talk to but you really have dropped the ball
-
A KTM PDS direct swap system would be illegal as it has no carryover resemblance. But there is no stopping you replicating one
-
reed valves ruling looks to be stuffed up check link under cmx 400 page10
http://www.ma.org.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Documents/Event_Documents/2015/Classic_MX_Classic_Dirt_Track_Commission_Minutes.pdf
may explain something
-
reed valves ruling looks to be stuffed up check link under cmx 400 page10
http://www.ma.org.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Documents/Event_Documents/2015/Classic_MX_Classic_Dirt_Track_Commission_Minutes.pdf
may explain something
The final minutes are even more interesting.
http://www.ma.org.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Documents/Event_Documents/2015/2015_Commission_Meeting_Minutes_ALL.pdf
Bits have disappeared between the two versions
Also the complete and it must be said offensive butchering of the QVMX / Heaven VMX EVO rule submission as recorded in both versions of the minutes is still there, no correction of the bits left out, which naturally was completely innocent.
I would suggest (hope) there will be a correction of the Pre75 reed valve rule. Not even the fascist like MA bureaucracy would mean to do that. Would they?
-
I see the minutes refers to excluding Mossbarger reed valves but GEM reed valves are OK - maybe as you say a cockup in the transfer from here to rules?
-
reed valves ruling looks to be stuffed up check link under cmx 400 page10
http://www.ma.org.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Documents/Event_Documents/2015/Classic_MX_Classic_Dirt_Track_Commission_Minutes.pdf
may explain something
The final minutes are even more interesting.
http://www.ma.org.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Documents/Event_Documents/2015/2015_Commission_Meeting_Minutes_ALL.pdf
Bits have disappeared between the two versions
Also the complete and it must be said offensive butchering of the QVMX / Heaven VMX EVO rule submission as recorded in both versions of the minutes is still there, no correction of the bits left out, which naturally was completely innocent.
I would suggest (hope) there will be a correction of the Pre75 reed valve rule. Not even the fascist like MA bureaucracy would mean to do that. Would they?
When you read the MA mission statement, you will see that they bang on about " transparency " Well they just look transparently through submissions, suggestions, comments and documents as if they never existed. Quite evident with these latest rule changes.
-
So... Is it time to call for a vote of No Confidence in the CMX/CDT Commission?
Maybe the reed valve thing is a typo, but the Evo thing clearly shows that they're making decisions that fail to meet the expectations of the punters AND are logically indefensible.
And if the reed valve thing isnt a typo, then god help us all...
-
That will never work Nathan, just as it didn't work not that long ago. Vote with your feet just as some have alluded to here already.
-
It just shows the total incompetence and arrogance of M.A. and a few people with there own agendas and personal hangups who after consulting with clubs have defied all logic and common sense and turned the sport upside down on its head , with all the controversy that has been going on over the last couple of years with rules and interpretations do you honestly think that theses could be mistakes ?
The clubs where asked to vote on the QVMX/HEAVEN EVO rule rewrite proposal, of which the vast majority agreed with the new set of rules , how that cannot be passed on and thrown out with scant regard beggars belief.
The people who have made these decisions have to be made accountable and REMOVED from our sport.
The 1%ers should not rule our sport. The fact that nobody from the ClassicMX/Dirttrack commission have not verified these facts is appalling and shows there total arrogance for the majority, all four commissioners frequent this forum and would be well aware of whats going on. Putting your head in the sand does not work in 2015
-
It must mean NO AFTERMARKET REED VALVES FOR PRE 75 bikes otherwise even the YZA Yamaha series is ineligible let alone the YZBs.............
-
FFS! All they had to the EVO rules was allow any drum brake front end and put a date on it.
-
Richard - still takes out GEM reed valves which has already been ascertained were available at the time and therefore legal though?
-
We now have EuroEvo.
It will still be a rider's class but bikes can be built with certainty from a much wider range of donor parts. USD fork technology Pre 90's is nothing to fear.
I look forward to seeing some interesting and innovative hybrids.
-
Richard - still takes out GEM reed valves which has already been ascertained were available at the time and therefore legal though?
It doesn't work like that. They can allow or ban anything.
Remember they banned Lectron carbs from pre-78 even though they were available in 1975.
-
And they wonder why we don't continue renewing our race licences. Me thinks a road registered trail bike so much more inviting now.
Merry Xmas
-
Remember they banned Lectron carbs from pre-78 even though they were available in 1975.
Ahh is this actually the rule now? i was currently planning on fitting a Lectron to a pre 78 bike as i always thought they were legal. Are you saying they no longer are? :( :-\ I don't think this forum is turning people away from the tracks anymore, it's some of the silly rules in the book!
-
(http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e204/tmbill/popcorn_zpsf8b9fcfc.jpg) (http://s40.photobucket.com/user/tmbill/media/popcorn_zpsf8b9fcfc.jpg.html)
Im sure those in positions of power will be along in a minute to allay your fears and explain how this is all for your benefit ;)
I have a bit of room if anyone wants to move on those now worthless YZ A/B models ;D
-
Wonder how long this thread will run before it gets canned due to political pressure ;)
-
Not very long i feel. But then i guess its off to facespace where you don't have to watch your language and it can't be struck off
-
I can't see any date (1990 has been referenced on here) for components listed for the EVO rules? Am I missing something?
K
-
Page 155. Machines acceptable for Evolution class must fall between the Post Classic and Classic periods. Carryover models accepted.
So with that there the Evo class will constantly move to newer models as newer classes are introduced. Absolutely ridiculous
-
Hmmm, I haven't read the rules yet but from what you guys are saying; I can now use my '79 KX250/400 with the stock '84 KX125 front forks :-) Might have to dust it off and get a race licence again :-)
-
Yes John -- time to get out there -- and all those pre 75 reed bikes will be with you because those bikes are not allowed in pre 78 unless of course the girlfriend gets a ride because the 75, 76, 77 only rule does not apply to the girls.
-
Well after reading the comments here without looking at any official document, it certainly appears as though the lunatics are running the asylum.
Great way to drive people away from the sport MA, well done!
It now appears more confusing than ever, when the sport is seemingly screaming out to be simplified.
Tony.
-
John O, the limit of the new Evo rules would be something along the lines of:
Take a 1989 CR250, convert the forks & swingarm to take a drum brake, fit an XR630 motor, and convert the rear end to be non-linkage (remembering those early-00 Husabergs that has no linkage and a shock that sat in about the same position as the stock CR shock).
Bingo, you have an Evo bike, according to the new rules.
And an Evo class that has no f$&king purpose, is not historically relevant, encourages the butchering of multiple old bikes, and puts all of the "real" Evo bikes at a big disadvantage.
-
Page 155. Machines acceptable for Evolution class must fall between the Post Classic and Classic periods. Carryover models accepted.
So with that there the Evo class will constantly move to newer models as newer classes are introduced. Absolutely ridiculous
Ted you should go back and read the wording. It doesn't say fall between it says fall within.
Also at the moment Pre90 is called Post Classic and if newer classes are introduced they are most likely to be called something else as they definetly not classic.
The way I read the rules as written. Use any component up 89 that meats the 3 magic rules. So any air cooled motor, any Twin shock frame(non linkage) and any Drum brake wheel fork combo. The wording on not modifing later components to comply could be made a little clearer perhaps but the intent is clear.
The Read Valve thing is an obvious typo and I think it is being fixed as we speak. The MA web site has taken down the link to the rules last I looked for them and I can only surmise a few changes needed to be made.
-
I just went to the MA website, can't see anything, is that where you guys were reading the proposed regulations?
-
John.
This link should take you to it, but I think they have taken it down as it had obvious mistakes.
http://ma.org.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Documents/MOMS/2016_MoMS.pdf
-
Yes John damage control is in place. They will amend and pretend nothing happened. Who proof reads this shit.
While you'se are fixing ip your glaring errors how about putting out the full Heaven / QVMX Evo rule amendments instead of the tampered one on your site
-
Page 155. Machines acceptable for Evolution class must fall between the Post Classic and Classic periods. Carryover models accepted.
So with that there the Evo class will constantly move to newer models as newer classes are introduced. Absolutely ridiculous
Ted you should go back and read the wording. It doesn't say fall between it says fall within.
Also at the moment Pre90 is called Post Classic and if newer classes are introduced they are most likely to be called something else as they definetly not classic.
The way I read the rules as written. Use any component up 89 that meats the 3 magic rules. So any air cooled motor, any Twin shock frame(non linkage) and any Drum brake wheel fork combo. The wording on not modifing later components to comply could be made a little clearer perhaps but the intent is clear.
The Read Valve thing is an obvious typo and I think it is being fixed as we speak. The MA web site has taken down the link to the rules last I looked for them and I can only surmise a few changes needed to be made.
Sleepy the intent is clear to YOU well done :) but it appears that it is not clear to any of the other posters so far .
A Typo Hmmm probably but in this day and age surely that's unacceptable . Are the rules typed up by pre school kids or administrators paid to do the job ?
What ever the rules and weather you agree with them or not the constant is and has always been they leave them open to various interpretations.
Rules should be written in such a way that they are clear and concise to the average licence holder( you shouldn't have to get your lawyer to look over them and then explain them to you )
Should not contradict one an other
Should never be printed or published on the organisations web site until they have been properly proof read .
Always had respect for your guys rules , I believed that they covered the eras well and were fairly easy to follow .
That was until recently when all hell broke loose over the Evo rules and now a ridiculous ruling on reed valves in pre 75 :-\
-
I received a reply from MA this morning re the pre 75 reed valve issue - pertains to Mossbarger reed valves only being banned
Thanks for your email. Please accept the Commissions apologies for the typo in the 2016 MoMS. A bulletin will be released to advise that it is only Mossbarger (or replica) reed valves that have now been banned from Pre 75 Classic MX & Classic DT.
The new GCR wording will be as follows:
13.14.4.4 No Mossbarger type (or replica type) reed valves permitted.
Very fast reply from MA - thanks
Rossco
-
Ted you seem to be an expert on the QVMX club.
Could you tell me how many EVO riders there are still active in the club?
Also the submision, was it drafted at a general club meeting for all to discuss?
If it is what the majortity wanted why didn't the Qld historic sub-committee support it?
-
The Classic Motocross and Dirt Track commissioners are listed as Dave Tanner, Shane Fraser, Kerry Marsh and Nick Maxfield, all of whom have been on here at some stage. Perhaps they may care to enlighten us as to the process here.
Among their powers is the recommendation of GCR rule changes only after consultation with SCBs and State sub-committees. But I can't say I've heard of anyone whacking in a remit to can reed valves.
Could be a typo? Reeds that came as standard only permitted.
None of those changes discussed in this thread, (inc removing all reed valves or delete externally unchanged) from my recollection where ever on the table or in the rule change submissions, nor in the process of scb request for response to the commission minutes. ( please check the published Commission minutes to confirm what was on the table)
This process has not changed.
So technically there is no point asking me GD66 as requested above. However from my personal view, I have no idea WHO has added or deleted those from the moms you would need to speak to the chair DT or Nicole (MA Admin [email protected]) to find out how those changes where made.
However as a current commissioner i can confirm, i have not seen ANY prior correspondence about deleting "externally remain unchanged" which is a cornerstone rule of classic motocross nor removing all reed valves from pre75. ( logic dictates you cant as 90% of bikes in pre 75 are reed)
I suggest you speak to Nicole directly and confirm what the situation is.
-
Hi Freakshow.
you say:
"However as a current commissioner i can confirm, i have not seen ANY prior correspondence about deleting "externally remain unchanged" which is a cornerstone rule of classic motocross nor removing all reed valves from pre75. ( logic dictates you cant as 90% of bikes in pre 75 are reed)"
Not sure 90% is correct, but anyway agree with your intention, and thanks for being a "worker"
-
Page 155. Machines acceptable for Evolution class must fall between the Post Classic and Classic periods. Carryover models accepted.
So with that there the Evo class will constantly move to newer models as newer classes are introduced. Absolutely ridiculous
Ted you should go back and read the wording. It doesn't say fall between it says fall within.
Also at the moment Pre90 is called Post Classic and if newer classes are introduced they are most likely to be called something else as they definetly not classic.
The way I read the rules as written. Use any component up 89 that meats the 3 magic rules. So any air cooled motor, any Twin shock frame(non linkage) and any Drum brake wheel fork combo. The wording on not modifing later components to comply could be made a little clearer perhaps but the intent is clear.
The Read Valve thing is an obvious typo and I think it is being fixed as we speak. The MA web site has taken down the link to the rules last I looked for them and I can only surmise a few changes needed to be made.
The actual wording in the MoMS is:
13.6.4.1 Applicable for the Rvolution class are machines that fall within the Post Classic and Classic era.
This (finally) restricts Evo to old bikes.
All the stuff that maybe, sort of, kinda might have restricted it to drum brake forks, originally aircooled motors and originally non-linkage frames/swingarms, is gone.
-
While I think the new EVO rulings didn't quite hit the mark, there seems to be a little "poetic" license taken in some of the examples given. Husaberg's were linkage bikes 1989 until 1999 not the other way around, so they can't be included in the discussion. The way I read it the only legal USD fork/drum combination would be 1984 KTM WP set up, not a modified set of disc USD forks. I have a KTM USD drum front end, but I don't think I'll be fitting it to an EVO bike (but then again, maybe I will). I've done a couple of 480 engines in 1980 Honda frames & have always believed they should be EVO legal, so I'm all for that one.
K
-
All the old rules about "OEM" are gone.
The class is now defined as being pre-90, so "later equipment" is now explicitly defined as 1990+.
A 1989 FrankenBike is now legal for Evo.
-
excuse me Freaky (and others) - the mistake re reed valves has now been clarified.
-
Hmmm, I haven't read the rules yet but from what you guys are saying; I can now use my '79 KX250/400 with the stock '84 KX125 front forks :-) Might have to dust it off and get a race licence again :-)
Your bike might fit the rules now but all the trick hardware in your body wasn't available in that era. ;)
-
The Classic Motocross and Dirt Track commissioners are listed as Dave Tanner, Shane Fraser, Kerry Marsh and Nick Maxfield, all of whom have been on here at some stage. Perhaps they may care to enlighten us as to the process here.
Among their powers is the recommendation of GCR rule changes only after consultation with SCBs and State sub-committees. But I can't say I've heard of anyone whacking in a remit to can reed valves.
Could be a typo? Reeds that came as standard only permitted.
None of those changes discussed in this thread, (inc removing all reed valves or delete externally unchanged) from my recollection where ever on the table or in the rule change submissions, nor in the process of scb request for response to the commission minutes. ( please check the published Commission minutes to confirm what was on the table)
This process has not changed.
So technically there is no point asking me GD66 as requested above. However from my personal view, I have no idea WHO has added or deleted those from the moms you would need to speak to the chair DT or Nicole (MA Admin [email protected]) to find out how those changes where made.
However as a current commissioner i can confirm, i have not seen ANY prior correspondence about deleting "externally remain unchanged" which is a cornerstone rule of classic motocross nor removing all reed valves from pre75. ( logic dictates you cant as 90% of bikes in pre 75 are reed)
I suggest you speak to Nicole directly and confirm what the situation is.
So Kerry are you saying these changes were made without consultation from you, being one of the four commissioners.
-
The Classic Motocross and Dirt Track commissioners are listed as Dave Tanner, Shane Fraser, Kerry Marsh and Nick Maxfield, all of whom have been on here at some stage. Perhaps they may care to enlighten us as to the process here.
Among their powers is the recommendation of GCR rule changes only after consultation with SCBs and State sub-committees. But I can't say I've heard of anyone whacking in a remit to can reed valves.
Could be a typo? Reeds that came as standard only permitted.
None of those changes discussed in this thread, (inc removing all reed valves or delete externally unchanged) from my recollection where ever on the table or in the rule change submissions, nor in the process of scb request for response...
So technically there is no point asking me GD66 as requested above. However from my personal view, I have no idea WHO has added or deleted those from the moms you would need to speak to the chair DT or Nicole (MA Admin [email protected]) to find out how those changes where made.
However as a current commissioner i can confirm, i have not seen ANY prior correspondence about deleting "externally remain unchanged" which is a cornerstone rule of classic motocross nor removing all reed valves from pre75.
My mistake Kerry, when I was ripping through the GCRs yesterday the CMXC minutes included CMX400, CMX rule 16.15.11, regarding 16.15.10, Acceptable machines and components. It did say, the Commission was seeking submissions from the SCBs, and also that the proposal was supported by the CMXC but they didn't want specific inclusion on the subject in the MoMS. It did mention the Mossbarger reeds by name, I imagine this part was lost in transcription but to the untrained eye it did look as though that had been discussed by the commission. I'm not having a crack at you by the way, I like your work, but all this stuff needs to be sorted through patiently. I might add, it's good to se so many involved with the discussion the very day the MoMS was released. If it was historic roadracers, they would bowl up to the first race next season (Island Classic probably) and be amazed that there had been a rule change...
-
Ted you seem to be an expert on the QVMX club.
Could you tell me how many EVO riders there are still active in the club?
Also the submision, was it drafted at a general club meeting for all to discuss?
If it is what the majortity wanted why didn't the Qld historic sub-committee support it?
Obviously you are being coached George. This has fu...ck all to do with this thread but I will humour you anyway.
(1) Plenty
(2) The submission was voted on at a special general meeting last year that was publicized well in advance with only one member in attendance voicing his disapproval.
(3) The MQ sub committee did not send a formal submission to MA but three of the four committee members sent a submission to MA regarding the QVMX proposal without the approval or knowledge of MQ. You NOW need to ask your coach why these three people have
since been dismissed of their positions by MQ.
QVMX along with TMXC and TMCC organised and ran the #1 event in Qld this year and QVMX also were on the podium as a finalist with the Conondale Classic, the biggest VMX race meeting in Australia. QVMX are the only VMX club in the world to have FIM status at a vintage MX meeting.
So George as you can see, QVMX are not interested in agendas, they are only interested in bettering our sport. Now run back for more questions to ask because your crowd has no answers.
-
The Classic Motocross and Dirt Track commissioners are listed as Dave Tanner, Shane Fraser, Kerry Marsh and Nick Maxfield, all of whom have been on here at some stage. Perhaps they may care to enlighten us as to the process here.
Among their powers is the recommendation of GCR rule changes only after consultation with SCBs and State sub-committees. But I can't say I've heard of anyone whacking in a remit to can reed valves.
Could be a typo? Reeds that came as standard only permitted.
None of those changes discussed in this thread, (inc removing all reed valves or delete externally unchanged) from my recollection where ever on the table or in the rule change submissions, nor in the process of scb request for response to the commission minutes. ( please check the published Commission minutes to confirm what was on the table)
This process has not changed.
So technically there is no point asking me GD66 as requested above. However from my personal view, I have no idea WHO has added or deleted those from the moms you would need to speak to the chair DT or Nicole (MA Admin [email protected]) to find out how those changes where made.
However as a current commissioner i can confirm, i have not seen ANY prior correspondence about deleting "externally remain unchanged" which is a cornerstone rule of classic motocross nor removing all reed valves from pre75. ( logic dictates you cant as 90% of bikes in pre 75 are reed)
I suggest you speak to Nicole directly and confirm what the situation is.
So Kerry are you saying these changes were made without consultation from you, being one of the four commissioners.
To my knowledge i have no correspondence from any party requesting comment on changes as listed above.
RE: the mossbarger external bolt on's, as per published cmx minutes was not supported as pre 75 legal.
Happy to discuss with anyone come 1st January.
-
The F.A.C.T.S. are out
Q.V.M.X. NO1 & NO2
-
Ted you seem to be an expert on the QVMX club.
Could you tell me how many EVO riders there are still active in the club?
Also the submision, was it drafted at a general club meeting for all to discuss?
If it is what the majortity wanted why didn't the Qld historic sub-committee support it?
Obviously you are being coached George. This has fu...ck all to do with this thread but I will humour you anyway.
(1) Plenty
(2) The submission was voted on at a special general meeting last year that was publicized well in advance with only one member in attendance voicing his disapproval.
(3) The MQ sub committee did not send a formal submission to MA but three of the four committee members sent a submission to MA regarding the QVMX proposal without the approval or knowledge of MQ. You NOW need to ask your coach why these three people have
since been dismissed of their positions by MQ.
QVMX along with TMXC and TMCC organised and ran the #1 event in Qld this year and QVMX also were on the podium as a finalist with the Conondale Classic, the biggest VMX race meeting in Australia. QVMX are the only VMX club in the world to have FIM status at a vintage MX meeting.
So George as you can see, QVMX are not interested in agendas, they are only interested in bettering our sport. Now run back for more questions to ask because your crowd has no answers.
Yip plenty of humor in that lot and might I say quite delousional, Ted get back on the Meds ;)
-
Well after reading the comments here without looking at any official document, it certainly appears as though the lunatics are running the asylum.
Great way to drive people away from the sport MA, well done!
It now appears more confusing than ever, when the sport is seemingly screaming out to be simplified.
Tony.
These new Evo rules simplify the building of a bike considerably.
-
Thank the good Lord it was only a typo, my newly acquired YZ250A was looking at becoming a garage queen for a while there ;)
-
Ted you seem to be an expert on the QVMX club.
Could you tell me how many EVO riders there are still active in the club?
Also the submision, was it drafted at a general club meeting for all to discuss?
If it is what the majortity wanted why didn't the Qld historic sub-committee support it?
Obviously you are being coached George. This has fu...ck all to do with this thread but I will humour you anyway.
(1) Plenty
(2) The submission was voted on at a special general meeting last year that was publicized well in advance with only one member in attendance voicing his disapproval.
(3) The MQ sub committee did not send a formal submission to MA but three of the four committee members sent a submission to MA regarding the QVMX proposal without the approval or knowledge of MQ. You NOW need to ask your coach why these three people have
since been dismissed of their positions by MQ.
QVMX along with TMXC and TMCC organised and ran the #1 event in Qld this year and QVMX also were on the podium as a finalist with the Conondale Classic, the biggest VMX race meeting in Australia. QVMX are the only VMX club in the world to have FIM status at a vintage MX meeting.
So George as you can see, QVMX are not interested in agendas, they are only interested in bettering our sport. Now run back for more questions to ask because your crowd has no answers.
Ted your quite a comedian. Coaching , that's real funny. You better tell me who not to talk to so I don't get misled.
When you say Plenty of EVO members would that be about 30 that rode at the Qld champs this year and out of those 30 would there have been 28 that signed a petition opposing the QVMX submission?
The 3 QVSC members being dismissed! I have my own ideas on why but it would be good in the interests of fair play for MQ to release the minutes of the last few meetings so that everyone can know what happened. I tried to view them but for so reason MQ didn't want to make them public, pitty as they would be quite good enertainment.
-
Sleepy, start another thread and I will address any issue you have. This thread is all about the glaring mistakes in the MoMS. [Admin: snip]
Oh, and how's it going Graham?
[Admin: Going OK so far but please avoid any suggestions or allegations in respect to any individual]
-
None of those changes discussed in this thread, (inc removing all reed valves or delete externally unchanged) from my recollection where ever on the table or in the rule change submissions, nor in the process of scb request for response to the commission minutes. ( please check the published Commission minutes to confirm what was on the table)
This process has not changed.
So technically there is no point asking me GD66 as requested above. However from my personal view, I have no idea WHO has added or deleted those from the moms you would need to speak to the chair DT or Nicole (MA Admin [email protected]) to find out how those changes where made.
However as a current commissioner i can confirm, i have not seen ANY prior correspondence about deleting "externally remain unchanged" which is a cornerstone rule of classic motocross nor removing all reed valves from pre75. ( logic dictates you cant as 90% of bikes in pre 75 are reed)
I suggest you speak to Nicole directly and confirm what the situation is.
Kerry has MA gone against the commission or previous rulings from the commission? I am not across what submissions have gone to the commission in VMX but in P6 Production road racing the commission has knocked the same submission from WA on the head about 5 times and now MA have gone in favour of it. Whats going on?
-
Probably to late but I would suggest that if in the clause 13.14.6.2 if the word "later" was replaced with "non-compliant" or "later or non-compliant" then things may be clearer.
Ted. [Admin: snip] Not quite understanding you as I personally think that original EVO only parts was a good idea but things moved forward and a change or interpretation has been made and we shouldn't go back. If the J forks that you mentioned were outlawed in new rules the 8 or so rider at the Connondale classic that where treated like criminals for daring to front up would probably leave the sport or that class. Not the way forward is it?
I suggest you start another thread so you can argue with yourself.
-
So can we get a show of hands, from the people who support Evo being a Pre-90 FrankenBike class?
Even those throwing stones, seem reluctant to endorse the new rules.
-
Evo will never be a pre '90 frankenbike class Nathan, you're using extreme, extreme examples of things that just won't happen. I still challenge anyone to build the mythical, possible (in your eyes) frankenbike & front up at a national with it. Wouldn't matter if you had a whole legal firm with you & got a spot on A Current Affair, it wouldn't get through scrutineering. We should be discussing real scenarios, not fiction.
K
-
So can we get a show of hands, from the people who support Evo being a Pre-90 FrankenBike class?
Even those throwing stones, seem reluctant to endorse the new rules.
Set up a Facebook poll Nathan. That is where you will find the Victorian Evo blokes. A handy rider on hotted up '81 XL 250 pretty well cleaned up VCM Evo. No PDS 630 USD required.????
-
Evo will never be a pre '90 frankenbike class Nathan, you're using extreme, extreme examples of things that just won't happen. I still challenge anyone to build the mythical, possible (in your eyes) frankenbike & front up at a national with it. Wouldn't matter if you had a whole legal firm with you & got a spot on A Current Affair, it wouldn't get through scrutineering. We should be discussing real scenarios, not fiction.
K
Why won't it happen? The Dutch do it, the poms do it, but us Aussies won't?
Ten or fifteen years ago, would any of us thought that we'd be seeing bikes of the current standard?
I'll take your optimistic hope that it won't happen, as a vote against the Evo class allowing Pre-90 Frankenbikes.
-
"Acceptable for the Evolution class are
machines and components that fall
within the Post Classic and Classic
era."
"All
machines must comply with the three
following conditions:
a) No linkage suspension,
b) No disk brakes,
c) Air cooled motors.
13.14.6.4 Carburettors; period flat slide carburettors
and any round slide carburettor may be
used."
PWK Carburettors???
-
"Acceptable for the Evolution class are
machines and components that fall
within the Post Classic and Classic
era."
"All
machines must comply with the three
following conditions:
a) No linkage suspension,
b) No disk brakes,
c) Air cooled motors.
13.14.6.4 Carburettors; period flat slide carburettors
and any round slide carburettor may be
used."
PWK Carburettors???
I reckon....
-
Evo will never be a pre '90 frankenbike class Nathan, you're using extreme, extreme examples of things that just won't happen. I still challenge anyone to build the mythical, possible (in your eyes) frankenbike & front up at a national with it. Wouldn't matter if you had a whole legal firm with you & got a spot on A Current Affair, it wouldn't get through scrutineering. We should be discussing real scenarios, not fiction.
K
There in lies the problem facing us (our branch of the sport).
The rules we all operate under are interpreted as we go not as written. The EVO rules as written in the 2016 MOMS, as you really should acknowledge for your own credibility, clearly allow the aforementioned Frankenbikes. I think that was intentional and not the work of the full CMX Commission read the minutes.
What are you suggesting? You feel that someone will stand as judge and executioner at a National meeting and reject what they or you feel is 'not in the spirit of the rules'. You suggest no one will be game to build a bike that takes the bike to the extreme of the rules because of the fear of being rejected if they are not in a click or look at the scrutineer the wrong way or like Honda instead of Yamaha. Surely this is not what we want our sport to be.
The rules should be clear but year by year our rules or being made more and more ambiguous. Take Pre65 you can use any frame as long as it is considerate of the era? For 2016 you can have an engine that does not have to look like a Pre65 engines as there is no requirement to do so. What about fitting a 4 valve cylinder head to a Triumph twin for Dirt Track. Is a '74 British B50 or CCM frame that much different to a '64 Metisse both very similar visually in design, same material, same welding technique. Who decides what considerate of the era is? Some people think fitting black rims to VMX bikes is a hanging offence others want to build bikes from scratch as they do in the UK and call them replicas. The rules need to be clear with only one clear interpretation.
The rules for EVO should ensure that bikes represent a period between the first generation long travel bikes (Pre78) and when 'modern' technology took over (Pre85). That is the peak of the traditional air cooled/drum brake/simple(non linkage) suspension bikes. The problem has always been the fact each manufacturer left that technology behind at different times.
We are a sport based on recreating a period in dirt bike racing history. Honda didn't build an open class 2st production bike with twin shocks/air cooled engine/drum brakes (the Mugen kitted 250 bikes accepted) that is a fact a simple indisputable fact but now we can rewrite history how wonderful. Our sport is not about taking components from up to 10 years into the future and fitting them because it is cool. What about all the riders that have '78, '79 models which are basically standard they will just put them away. EVO could easily become cheque book racing just as Period 5 HRR has.
Writing laws (rules) then allowing each policeman/woman to interpret or apply the law as they see fit is what you are suggesting. That is anarchy
I encourage people to read the minutes of the CMX Commission (both the April and final versions) and note what was discussed and compare it to the 2016 MOMS.
-
Firstly why is my opinion not credible & yours is? No-one will build that bike even though the rules may allow it because it's simply not VMX and everyone, not just a "click" or the privileged few will oppose it. You, like pretty much everyone are already opposing it even though you say it can be legally presented. Just because the Dutch do it (they wear wooden shoes too), doesn't mean it will happen here.
As for re-writing history with a Honda big bore Evo bike, those bikes existed, albeit not public production bikes. Neither were 60 clicks of compression & rebound adjustable shocks, using today's computer enhanced design & technology, so history has already been re-written.
As for cheque book racing, well that's pretty much the norm these days. I see hoards of cashed up dad's attempting to re-live their youth by building super trick bikes & putting their trained up, fit, fast kids on them or hiring a gun to win trophies at National events. Plenty of trophies have to gone to guys who never ride VMX except for national events.
The way I see it, the new rules ease a little pressure and allow grass roots racers a little more leeway to build compliant bikes using more readily available, cheaper components & still be in the spirit of VMX. You can either embrace the rules & go with it to what ever extent you like (build a Dutch style twin shock if you're adamant it will pass) or continue on bleeting about how hard you've been done by.
It's not rocket science even though there's a faction out there alluding that is.
K
-
Evo will never be a pre '90 frankenbike class Nathan, you're using extreme, extreme examples of things that just won't happen. I still challenge anyone to build the mythical, possible (in your eyes) frankenbike & front up at a national with it. Wouldn't matter if you had a whole legal firm with you & got a spot on A Current Affair, it wouldn't get through scrutineering. We should be discussing real scenarios, not fiction.
K
There in lies the problem facing us (our branch of the sport).
The rules we all operate under are interpreted as we go not as written. The EVO rules as written in the 2016 MOMS, as you really should acknowledge for your own credibility, clearly allow the aforementioned Frankenbikes. I think that was intentional and not the work of the full CMX Commission read the minutes.
What are you suggesting? You feel that someone will stand as judge and executioner at a National meeting and reject what they or you feel is 'not in the spirit of the rules'. You suggest no one will be game to build a bike that takes the bike to the extreme of the rules because of the fear of being rejected if they are not in a click or look at the scrutineer the wrong way or like Honda instead of Yamaha. Surely this is not what we want our sport to be.
The rules should be clear but year by year our rules or being made more and more ambiguous. Take Pre65 you can use any frame as long as it is considerate of the era? For 2016 you can have an engine that does not have to look like a Pre65 engines as there is no requirement to do so. What about fitting a 4 valve cylinder head to a Triumph twin for Dirt Track. Is a '74 British B50 or CCM frame that much different to a '64 Metisse both very similar visually in design, same material, same welding technique. Who decides what considerate of the era is? Some people think fitting black rims to VMX bikes is a hanging offence others want to build bikes from scratch as they do in the UK and call them replicas. The rules need to be clear with only one clear interpretation.
The rules for EVO should ensure that bikes represent a period between the first generation long travel bikes (Pre78) and when 'modern' technology took over (Pre85). That is the peak of the traditional air cooled/drum brake/simple(non linkage) suspension bikes. The problem has always been the fact each manufacturer left that technology behind at different times.
We are a sport based on recreating a period in dirt bike racing history. Honda didn't build an open class 2st production bike with twin shocks/air cooled engine/drum brakes (the Mugen kitted 250 bikes accepted) that is a fact a simple indisputable fact but now we can rewrite history how wonderful. Our sport is not about taking components from up to 10 years into the future and fitting them because it is cool. What about all the riders that have '78, '79 models which are basically standard they will just put them away. EVO could easily become cheque book racing just as Period 5 HRR has.
Writing laws (rules) then allowing each policeman/woman to interpret or apply the law as they see fit is what you are suggesting. That is anarchy
I encourage people to read the minutes of the CMX Commission (both the April and final versions) and note what was discussed and compare it to the 2016 MOMS.
Spot on :)
-
Firstly why is my opinion not credible & yours is? No-one will build that bike even though the rules may allow it because it's simply not VMX and everyone, not just a "click" or the privileged few will oppose it. You, like pretty much everyone are already opposing it even though you say it can be legally presented. Just because the Dutch do it (they wear wooden shoes too), doesn't mean it will happen here.
Maybe not tomorrow but give it couple of seasons, if its all done on fair play and common sense why have a rule book ?
As for re-writing history with a Honda big bore Evo bike, those bikes existed, albeit not public production bikes.
So buy and race a proper factory bike or build and exact replica of one not one cobbled from later components . Those look cool but the factory specials are just that special and rare .
Neither were 60 clicks of compression & rebound adjustable shocks, using today's computer enhanced design & technology, so history has already been re-written.
]Agreed but that door has already been opened , dont have an answer to that
As for cheque book racing, well that's pretty much the norm these days. I see hoards of cashed up dad's attempting to re-live their youth by building super trick bikes & putting their trained up, fit, fast kids on them or hiring a gun to win trophies at National events. Plenty of trophies have to gone to guys who never ride VMX except for national events.
Agree again ,all for it in their own class though
The way I see it, the new rules ease a little pressure and allow grass roots racers a little more leeway to build compliant bikes using more readily available, cheaper components & still be in the spirit of VMX. You can either embrace the rules & go with it to what ever extent you like (build a Dutch style twin shock if you're adamant it will pass) or continue on bleeting about how hard you've been done by.
It's not rocket science even though there's a faction out there alluding that is.
K
-
Firstly why is my opinion not credible & yours is? No-one will build that bike even though the rules may allow it because it's simply not VMX and everyone, not just a "click" or the privileged few will oppose it. You, like pretty much everyone are already opposing it even though you say it can be legally presented. Just because the Dutch do it (they wear wooden shoes too), doesn't mean it will happen here.
As for re-writing history with a Honda big bore Evo bike, those bikes existed, albeit not public production bikes. Neither were 60 clicks of compression & rebound adjustable shocks, using today's computer enhanced design & technology, so history has already been re-written.
As for cheque book racing, well that's pretty much the norm these days. I see hoards of cashed up dad's attempting to re-live their youth by building super trick bikes & putting their trained up, fit, fast kids on them or hiring a gun to win trophies at National events. Plenty of trophies have to gone to guys who never ride VMX except for national events.
The way I see it, the new rules ease a little pressure and allow grass roots racers a little more leeway to build compliant bikes using more readily available, cheaper components & still be in the spirit of VMX. You can either embrace the rules & go with it to what ever extent you like (build a Dutch style twin shock if you're adamant it will pass) or continue on bleeting about how hard you've been done by.
It's not rocket science even though there's a faction out there alluding that is.
K
So from your second sentence you agree that the Frankenbikes are legal under the 2016 MOMS. You suggest we rely on the good will of all concerned to do the right thing ???
-
I can suggest an amendment to the rule /law
everybody's a winner, that simple. no rules required
focus on age based racing first, then era's of manufacture on OEM bikes.
-
Well after reading the comments here without looking at any official document, it certainly appears as though the lunatics are running the asylum.
Great way to drive people away from the sport MA, well done!
It now appears more confusing than ever, when the sport is seemingly screaming out to be simplified.
Tony.
These new Evo rules simplify the building of a bike considerably.
There seems to be a load of confusion in the previous posts though Marcus!
-
Bigk, your argument fails by assuming that nobody will.
If we are meekly counting on people to do the right thing (based on an undefined moral code), then there's no need for the rules at all.
If we need rules, then we also need them to accurately represent what the class is supposed to be about.
If I was silly enough to still own an Evo bike, I'd have already ordered a PWK and some '89 US spec KX forks. No question at all.
They're not as offensive as the full-blown Frankenbike, but they still have no place on any Evo bike.
We really need to think about why VMX exists as a sport: Is it to showcase old bikes, racing as they did in the day? Or something else - and if so, what is that something else?
I note a total of one vote for the Pre-90 Evo class.
-
These new Evo rules simplify the building of a bike considerably.
Even easier is to just buy a modern...
The only reason for VMX, and VMX classes, to exist is to represent various eras of outdated bikes.
What is achieved by creating a class that represents bikes that never did exist?
It would have been possible to build a USD forked, PWK'd, YZ465 in 1989 - but nobody did.
Back when people were still regularly racing YZ465s, you simply couldn't have built such a beast.
So how do these new rules make any sense?
-
the only problem Australia has with Evolution is this forum and the determination of some to bring Evolution down. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.
David Tanner
Evolution Class competitor - unlike some with an opinion.
-
the only problem Australia has with Evolution is this forum and the determination of some to bring Evolution down. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.
David Tanner
Evolution Class competitor - unlike some with an opinion.
So Dave you stand by the 2016 MOMS Evolution Class rules?
They have your full support?
You were fully supportive of them prior to publication?
These are critical point we need the rationale behind them.
-
I have put another post up that may interest everyone. Please read it carefully.
Worms yes you can suggest an amendment. Look in the MoMS and you will see a section on making rule changes. Page 20 in 2016 MoMS.
Please everyone stop all this crap. The rules haven't really changed that much, but I got an answer from the MA office (the correct ones to ask) that says the so called Frakenbikes can not be used.
End of argument.
-
Hmmm, I am in favour of the 'Pre 90' ruling only so that there is less confusion. Really, as others have said before "Evo is not really an 'aged based' class, I guess only in that the majority (all) of bikes pre 1981 were air-cooled, drum-braked, non-linkage.
Aside from the historic reasoning, it would still be interesting to watch/ride a class is just that 'air-cooled, drum-braked, non-linkage'. Maybe it could take it out of the realm of 'vintage' but I doubt it.
Even if someone put a CR500 engine in a '79 250 chassis, so what, the CR500 is still a 'vintage' machine engine from a 32 year old bike.
I bailed-out of the Evo class because I couldn't use the '84 KX forks on my '79 KX250/400 because they were from a disc-brake model, they were completely stock internally, yet someone with a ton of money could completely revamp the internals of a set of YZ465 forks!
Personally for the sake of vintage appeal, I would like non USD forks added to the basic class ruling :-)
-
There is no point making suggestions for rule changes. We have what we have now, which really haven't changed much, but I now have a written statement that says you can not convert a bike to the class. That is enough for me. Also most EVO bikes are Pre82 the only real exception is the 84 Husky 500 class bikes.
The process for changes the rules for the 2017 MoMS will start soon.
I'm satisfied with the answers I got and will (yes will) protest anything I see wrong.
-
I ... will (yes will) protest anything I see wrong.
Good. It's the only way this shit-fight will ever be cleared up properly.
-
There is no point making suggestions for rule changes. We have what we have now, which really haven't changed much, but I now have a written statement that says you can not convert a bike to the class. That is enough for me. Also most EVO bikes are Pre82 the only real exception is the 84 Husky 500 class bikes.
The process for changes the rules for the 2017 MoMS will start soon.
I'm satisfied with the answers I got and will (yes will) protest anything I see wrong.
Sorry but i don't think you have the scrutineers on the ground to enforce it, you having a letter means nothing if its not at the tracks around the country, bikes even at national level get through that do not comply to the rules for which they were entered. Unfortunately its going to become a self scrutineer system and even now people are to scared to rock the boat or be an outcast, so the book needs to be the religion, not an interpretation.
-
Yep the book must be the religion or I'm never going to a National to be at the whim of the Scrutineer.
-
Just a reminder to all to keep comments directed at the rules themselves, rather than imputing motives or intent to anyone or any organisation. That is partly to be fair to all parties and partly to limit fallout in my direction. Thank you.
-
Heaven: No I do not agree the current rules allow 1990 based evo bikes, they simply don't unless you apply the nth degree flawed logic which some obviously are. I guess some people like the sound of their own voices. It won't happen because no-one will be stupid enough to spend the big dollars just to attempt to prove a moot point.
Nathan: Please explain to me how a set of US spec '89 KX forks (conventional/disc brake) can be used on an EVO bike without any modification?
On a different note, it seems that some guys can get away with anything anyway, just depends who you are. I clearly saw an international rider campaign a set of Ohlins USD forks (1st available 1998) on a CR500 in the Pre '90 class at a recent international event. No protests & maybe a pat on the back for being a good bloke for attending the event. Where were all your voices then?
Take it on the chin & work within the rules. It's pretty easy really.
K
-
Well, what an INTERESTING read this lot is.....
On one hand we have those that (me included) read the rules as having pre90 components acceptable for use in Evolution class racing.....On the other, we have those that want our moral compass to guide us along the path of righteousness....HOW ABOUT A SET OF RULES THAT SPELL THE LOT OUT IN BLACK AND WHITE.....it can't be that hard MA
BUT as for me, having given the whole scheebang a bit more thought, what are those components I could legally use when applying the Aircooled, drum brake, non linkage suspension theme as my guide? The answer is NONE! It would cost more than one testicle to build an Evo eligible machine out of a Disc brake, water cooled, USD fork and link suspension bike and I couldn't see it being a world beater in it's own right anyway.
I'm all for being able to use any aircooled motor you like as long as it slots into a GENUINE twinshock/non linkage frame. Yep, I'm a big boy and I realise there will be flack in my direction......
-
Nathan: Please explain to me how a set of US spec '89 KX forks (conventional/disc brake) can be used on an EVO bike without any modification?
It's not in the rules anymore.
Basically the rules don't even pretend to care how you get there, you just have to end up with an AC/DB/NL bike that's built from Pre-90 components.
-
"13.14.6.2 Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed."
-
John, I wouldn't worry too much about being at the whim of the scrutineers at these big events, which was proven at the Conandale Classic this year.Numerous bikes at scrutineering were classed as Ineligible for the EVO class by the scrutineers . After a protest was put forward to the steward. The protest was upheld and the machines were reinstated. Hope to see you up here next year having fun at the Nationals.
-
"13.14.6.2 Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed."
Later than 1989. Now in black and white.
-
Heaven: No I do not agree the current rules allow 1990 based evo bikes, they simply don't unless you apply the nth degree flawed logic which some obviously are. I guess some people like the sound of their own voices. It won't happen because no-one will be stupid enough to spend the big dollars just to attempt to prove a moot point.
Nathan: Please explain to me how a set of US spec '89 KX forks (conventional/disc brake) can be used on an EVO bike without any modification?
I would interpret that to mean that I can fabricate a bracket to bolt onto the caliper mounting on the leg that has a lug to lock the drum brake backing plate . I have seen it done before , I would think that must comply even under previous rule that said without modification . The fork has not been modified as such just had an extra bracket bolted to it. At any time the forks could be bolted back into the 89 bike as they have not been modified . :-\
On a different note, it seems that some guys can get away with anything anyway, just depends who you are. I clearly saw an international rider campaign a set of Ohlins USD forks (1st available 1998) on a CR500 in the Pre '90 class at a recent international event. No protests & maybe a pat on the back for being a good bloke for attending the event. Where were all your voices then?
Take it on the chin & work within the rules. It's pretty easy really.
K
-
I always felt that EVO should be about twinshock/non linkaged/aircooled bikes 1978-1984 models and not allow components from bikes in the class above eg parts off pre 85 or pre 90 bikes. I don't understand why people want to build bikes that did not exist back then.
Maybe a better way would be to have 2 pre 85 classes rather than an EVO class. If it has watercooling, linkage rear or disc brake then it would be in the 'normal' pre 85 class as we have it now, lets call it 'Pre 85 class 1' then all other bikes 78-84 models can go in a second pre 85 class called 'pre 85 class 2' Then you have a blanket statement stating no components from linkaged/disc/watercooled pre 85 class 1 bikes to be used on pre 85 class 2 bikes and then its so much simpler and really cuts out the confusion and stops all the upgraded franken bikes etc. I think the main issue currently is that there is not really a defined year cut off for EVO, well by the looks of it now its 1989, which is crazy if you ask me.
-
Evolution
1. All motors must be air-cooled only and have a maximum of 2 cylinders. No liquid cooled models or bikes modified with Liquid cooled engines qualify.
2. No linkage rear shock suspension. Twin Shock or Cantilever (e.g. early Yamaha monocross with no linkage) only.
3. No upside down forks, or disc brakes. Air Caps on forks and Remote Reservoir shock absorbers are ok.
Life is easy in unzud ;D ;D
-
I nomaly stay a way from this But
This will go on and the loser will be VMX
So I say that M A should add a New class to the MoMs ..
The New Class could be Called Super Twin Shock All Ages Riders
The Class should be Twin shock Drum brake Air cooled Pre 90 Bike .
and Add a Clear set of rule to the Evo Class Like ..what Heaven have put up
EVO
16.15.12.1 Machines will be 1984 and older models originally manufactured before
31 Dec 1984 with
a) Non linkage suspension
b) Drum brakes and
c) Air cooled engines
Note, machines that comply with a), b) and c) but not the cut off date can be
considered for MA for inclusion. eg DT175, CZ.
16.15.12.2 Converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed.
16.15.12.3 Machines will have all major components derived from models satisfying 16.15.12.1
and must remain externally unchanged.
Major components are :
a) Engine cases, barrel and head
b) Frames
c) Swingarms
d) Brakes, front and rear hubs c/w backing plates.
e) Forks and fork yokes.
The following can be considered by MA for use
a) Carry over components (those that have not substantially changed)
from models satisfying 16.15.12.1
b) Aftermarket components (or replicas) that where available for
machines satisfying 16.15.12.1
c) Replica replacement components
d) Replacement components that for safety reasons have been approved
The following can be considered by MA for use
a) Carry over components (those that have not substantially changed)
from models satisfying 16.15.12.1
b) Aftermarket components (or replicas) that where available for
machines satisfying 16.15.12.1
c) Replica replacement components
d) Replacement components that for safety reasons have been approved
16.15.12.4 Rear shock absorbers are free provided they are externally similar to those from the period
16.15.12.5 Carburetor's, flatslide (available up to 1984) and any round slide carburetor may be used.
16.15.12.6 All machines must be fitted with an effective muffler and comply
with sound control regulations in the GCR's
16.15.12.7 Folding (self returning) footrests must be fitted. Wider footpegs are permitted.
16.15.12.8 Countershaft sprocket covers must be fitted.
16.15.12.9 Handlebars must be equipped with a protection pad on the crossbar.
Handlebars not equipped with a crossbar must be equipped with a protection pad in
the middle of the handlebars covering the handlebar clamps.
This is a Win Win
The Blokes who want to run a Evo Bike and add all the Fruit and Go Fast Bits to it go race in Super Twin Shock
and in Pre 90. One Bike but 2 rides Happy Days .
The Bike Rider/Owner who want to run Evo as it was in the day Just like the other Class .
ride in Evo .
That My bit
In life there is a lot of things I would love to do... But we must have Strong Rules.... other Wise we just have a Shit Fight ..
Dennis
I keep seeing Bad Spelling
-
After more than ten years the author still cannot spell it out in a clear concise manner understood by all.
-
Den, I pretty much agree. But if someone wants to build a special bike, they can run it in Pre-90. Why do they need their own class?
-
Den, I pretty much agree. But if someone wants to build a special bike, they can run it in Pre-90. Why do they need their own class?
As I look at this I see that you have Blokes who want to ride a Twin Shock Bike but want it to ride Like a Pre 90 Bike ..Or Better
and they want to Add all the arfter market stuff to it and Mod it Up ...to make it a better Bike ...
and are Not happy to ride a OEM Bog Stock Evo Bike .
So the Rule Bending will go on ....and I have see it Go On over the Years ..
Yes I have Been a Member of a Vintage MX club since 1999 ..
and have seen the Rule bending going on ....
We was Told that we had to Have the Split . to have the time to run all Class !
1 More will not fill up the meeting ...Will It ..
and if you dont get the Numbers.. well it will be a Demo Race and the riders will be still Happy ..
But we still Keep and Perserve the Bikes as thay were Riden in the Day In the EVO
-
Yep. And that's most of the problem: people who race old bikes who apparently don't like old bikes.
If someone wants to race a Pre-90 bike, then race Pre-90. If you want to race moderns, then race moderns.
-
After more than ten years the author still cannot spell it out in a clear concise manner understood by all.
Really Ted? You have to resort to slinging of at Dennis's grammatical/spelling skills? Is that really necessary?
-
I am not having a go at Dennis at all fella . I'm having a go at the fella who wrote the rules over ten years ago and still cannot put it in simple terms for all to understand.
I know Dennis can't spell and I've told him plenty of times. Ask him.
-
My mistake, and I apologise, that's just how it read.
Tony.
-
After more than ten years the author still cannot spell it out in a clear concise manner understood by all.
Really Ted? You have to resort to slinging of at Dennis's grammatical/spelling skills? Is that really necessary?
I think that evey one know that I
Can Not Spell for shit ..... a 4th class schooling did not help ..
-
My mistake Dennis, I didn't know Ted knew you personally.
-
Doesn't EVERYONE know Dennis? He was the first bloke to introduce himself when I was wandering around glassy eyed at the first Heaven event I went to as a spectator all those years back.
-
I like reading Dennis' posts, I can modify the missing bits to change it into whatever I like.
Just like this riveting thread.
-
Den, I pretty much agree. But if someone wants to build a special bike, they can run it in Pre-90. Why do they need their own class?
As I look at this I see that you have Blokes who want to ride a Twin Shock Bike but want it to ride Like a Pre 90 Bike ..Or Better
and they want to Add all the arfter market stuff to it and Mod it Up ...to make it a better Bike ...
and are Not happy to ride a OEM Bog Stock Evo Bike .
So the Rule Bending will go on ....and I have see it Go On over the Years ..
Yes I have Been a Member of a Vintage MX club since 1999 ..
and have seen the Rule bending going on ....
We was Told that we had to Have the Split . to have the time to run all Class !
1 More will not fill up the meeting ...Will It ..
and if you dont get the Numbers.. well it will be a Demo Race and the riders will be still Happy ..
But we still Keep and Perserve the Bikes as thay were Riden in the Day In the EVO
A lot of common sense in there :)
-
Yep. And that's most of the problem: people who race old bikes who apparently don't like old bikes.
So bloody true ;D Oh the irony of it
-
something like this perhaps!
Pre65 :D
Pre70 :D
pre75 :D
pre78 :D
Pre81 :o twin shock factory stock std inc yamaha cantilever, No disc, liquid, linkage or USD
Pre85 :o
Pre90 :)
Pre95 :( oh oh what have i done?
-
something like this perhaps!
Pre65 :D
Pre70 :D
pre75 :D
pre78 :D
Pre81 :o twin shock factory stock std inc yamaha cantilever, No disc, liquid, linkage or USD
Pre85 :o
Pre90 :)
Pre95 :( oh oh what have i done?
So you want to push the 81 Maicos and Yamahas out of the class.
Pre 95 in five years time (maybe)
-
And when that happens Kevvy it will also be in the Post Classic period and Evo will have another era to encompass. It will be an ever evolving class.
-
Pre 95 in five years time (maybe)
I heard that five years ago...
-
We have now established that most State Main Roads (or what ever they are called) don't consider a car or bike for Vintage or Historical rego until they are at least 25 years old (some 30 years).
So we have a year definition of Vintage or Historical.
Fact not fiction or hysterical bull shit.
-
something like this perhaps!
Pre65 :D
Pre70 :D
pre75 :D
pre78 :D
Pre81 :o twin shock factory stock std inc yamaha cantilever, No disc, liquid, linkage or USD
Pre85 :o
Pre90 :)
Pre95 :( oh oh what have i done?
So you want to push the 81 Maicos and Yamahas out of the class.
Pre 95 in five years time (maybe)
Luckily '81 490 Maicos are competitive up to '85. :P
-
No they belong in the EVO class. Rick invented the class for them.
If I have to race bikes with disc brakes I will just run into them in the first corner.
-
No they belong in the EVO class. Rick invented the class for them.
If I have to race bikes with disc brakes I will just run into them in the first corner.
not if you're in front
-
No they belong in the EVO class. Rick invented the class for them.
If I have to race bikes with disc brakes I will just run into them in the first corner.
You will have to stay on first Kev , you did a fair bit of gardening at echo valley ;D
-
Luckily '81 490 Maicos are competitive up to '85. :P
and way beyond 85 – Viper members who were at the Castlemaine meeting maybe 3 years ago will remember the Maico with a not so young rider coming 3rd in the all powers modern race, was brilliant for the spectators seeing that twin shock bike "on the edge"
(hope my memory is correct on that)
-
Luckily '81 490 Maicos are competitive up to '85. :P
and way beyond 85 – Viper members who were at the Castlemaine meeting maybe 3 years ago will remember the Maico with a not so young rider coming 3rd in the all powers modern race, was brilliant for the spectators seeing that twin shock bike "on the edge"
(hope my memory is correct on that)
I agree, I still have footage of Ballard at CD4 at Barrabool, awesome combination. Great entertainment.
It's a testament to the bike that they have to compete with disc braked, linkaged, liquid cooled bikes in more modern chassis and still finish at the pointy end.
-
something like this perhaps!
Pre65 :D
Pre70 :D
pre75 :D
pre78 :D
Pre81 :o twin shock factory stock std inc yamaha cantilever, No disc, liquid, linkage or USD
Pre85 :o
Pre90 :)
Pre95 :( oh oh what have i done?
So you want to push the 81 Maicos and Yamahas out of the class.
Pre 95 in five years time (maybe)
ooops :-[ make that Pre82! actually what is the best cut off point? 83, 84?
-
We have now established that most State Main Roads (or what ever they are called) don't consider a car or bike for Vintage or Historical rego until they are at least 25 years old (some 30 years).
So we have a year definition of Vintage or Historical.
Fact not fiction or hysterical bull shit.
A Historical Vintage fact - with the usual dose of Bureacracy sprinkled on it!
so why do they do that?
-
Why does EVO need the bikes to be changed? Were the riders unhappy?
Just sort out the rules so that the class is the same as it was this year and with no need for interpretations.
-
Luckily '81 490 Maicos are competitive up to '85. :P
and way beyond 85 – Viper members who were at the Castlemaine meeting maybe 3 years ago will remember the Maico with a not so young rider coming 3rd in the all powers modern race, was brilliant for the spectators seeing that twin shock bike "on the edge"
(hope my memory is correct on that)
I agree, I still have footage of Ballard at CD4 at Barrabool, awesome combination. Great entertainment.
It's a testament to the bike that they have to compete with disc braked, linkaged, liquid cooled bikes in more modern chassis and still finish at the pointy end.
Ballard has put an 84 Honda front end on his Maico with a disc brake. So he thought it needed one to be competitive.
-
No they belong in the EVO class. Rick invented the class for them.
If I have to race bikes with disc brakes I will just run into them in the first corner.
You will have to stay on first Kev , you did a fair bit of gardening at echo valley ;D
So a fair bit is falling off once. Get your facts straight. Anyway the garden was over ploughed and over watered.
-
something like this perhaps!
Pre65 :D
Pre70 :D
pre75 :D
pre78 :D
Pre81 :o twin shock factory stock std inc yamaha cantilever, No disc, liquid, linkage or USD
Pre85 :o
Pre90 :)
Pre95 :( oh oh what have i done?
So you want to push the 81 Maicos and Yamahas out of the class.
Pre 95 in five years time (maybe)
ooops :-[ make that Pre82! actually what is the best cut off point? 83, 84?
Probably Pre82 is close but the Husky 500 was still twin shock in 84 and the ATKs should also be considered. In 81 Maico, Husky, CZ and maybe some others were twin shock and the Yamahas were non linkage.
As for why do the rules need to change?
Basically we could never get a written interpretation. I asked and didn't get one. I now have one that says you can't convert a linkage single shock bike to non linkage or twin shock. Something we didn't have before. I still want an interpretation for what parts can be used etc.
Again the rules haven't really changed greatly.
I can only speak for myself I don't want to see the following
1. Linkage bikes converted
2. Frames or complete bikes brought in from the UK that are used in their Twin Shock class. You can buy a frame kit to fit most air cooled motors in a replica of a Maico frame.
No one is going to convert a KTM with PDS suspension to what they think is a EVO legal bike, but I can see frame kits being used and just frames being converted.
These would be bikes that didn't exist.
Why I'm I so out spoken? Well I was one of the guys up here in Queensland that introduced the EVO class up here in 1997, eight years before it was in the MoMS.
Now if anyone wants to put shit on me don't waste your time I won't react.
I won't feed the Forum Trolls.
-
You cant really make EVO into pre 81 or Pre82 because theres too much of a technology overlap. Some makes were early to adopt disc/watercooling and some bikes were late going to linkage rear end. Its going to push all the twinshock Huskies, Canams, 81/82 PE's and other odd ball Euro twinshockers into Pre 85. If there was ever to be a change i think it should have a year cut off at pre 85 (84 models) and i would not bother in allowing 'follow on models' like TS185ER or DT175, XL185 unless this would really upset people :-\ I think follow on rules tend to make people see how far they bend the the rules. How many part changes constitues a bike being a non follow on model? Is it only decal changes that are allowed? as long as the changed component is not performance enhancing is the bike still allowed as a follow on? etc etc, see what i mean, people will try and see how far they can bend the rules to suit. Anyway then it needs to be called something. Something that does not clash with Pre 85. My previous example idea of Pre85 1 and Pre85 2 would probably create confusion for some. Maybe just keep it called EVO but have a 1984 model cut off but not actually have the year cut off in part of the class name, and anything with linkage/disc/watercooling obviously still goes to pre 85. Just put a 1984 model cut off on Evo and it makes things so much straight forward and would end all the drama.
If you want to build HL or CJ Honda using current repro frames, fair enough but you still gotta use a 1984 or older engine. No trying to sneak in a 1989 XR600 or whatever engine because its 'air cooled'
Evo can still be aircooled/drum brake/non linkage 'technology based' but also have 84 model cut off and also prevent the use of components off a pre 85 or pre 90 bike. This would stop 43mm TLS front ends off 84 RM's or any other front end off a pre 85 bike being used on 79/80 RM's (or other EVO bikes) I know it would upset some people but its how i think it should be.
In the end i think most people do actually want EVO to showcase 78-84 model bikes that did not have disc brakes/linkage/watercooling.
-
You cant really make EVO into pre 81 or Pre82 because theres too much of a technology overlap. Some makes were early to adopt disc/watercooling and some bikes were late going to linkage rear end. Its going to push all the twinshock Huskies, Canams, 81/82 PE's and other odd ball Euro twinshockers into Pre 85. If there was ever to be a change i think it should have a year cut off at pre 85 (84 models) and i would not bother in allowing 'follow on models' like TS185ER or DT175, XL185 unless this would really upset people :-\ I think follow on rules tend to make people see how far they bend the the rules. How many part changes constitues a bike being a non follow on model? Is it only decal changes that are allowed? as long as the changed component is not performance enhancing is the bike still allowed as a follow on? etc etc, see what i mean, people will try and see how far they can bend the rules to suit. Anyway then it needs to be called something. Something that does not clash with Pre 85. My previous example idea of Pre85 1 and Pre85 2 would probably create confusion for some. Maybe just keep it called EVO but have a 1984 model cut off but not actually have the year cut off in part of the class name, and anything with linkage/disc/watercooling obviously still goes to pre 85. Just put a 1984 model cut off on Evo and it makes things so much straight forward and would end all the drama.
If you want to build HL or CJ Honda using current repro frames, fair enough but you still gotta use a 1984 or older engine. No trying to sneak in a 1989 XR600 or whatever engine because its 'air cooled'
Evo can still be aircooled/drum brake/non linkage 'technology based' but also have 84 model cut off and also prevent the use of components off a pre 85 or pre 90 bike. This would stop 43mm TLS front ends off 84 RM's or any other front end off a pre 85 bike being used on 79/80 RM's (or other EVO bikes) I know it would upset some people but its how i think it should be.
In the end i think most people do actually want EVO to showcase 78-84 model bikes that did not have disc brakes/linkage/watercooling.
Your last two paragraphs are exactly the way Heaven and QVMX submissions read when sent to MA. Because these submissions didn't suit a commissioners view they were totally disregarded.
-
" Because these submissions didn't suit a commissioners view they were totally disregarded."
Excuse me Ted - do you know this for fact (please read that as a genuine question and not a go at you)? Have you spoken to the commissioners re the outcome and what did or did not happen? If you have thanks - if not then that is an example of my concern about this thread/forum - lots of talk but not much walk?
-
Lots of good discussion about the class rules -- but it seems to be going nowhere.
Is there another viewpoint?
Perhaps -- if we started from "what class rules will lead to greater participation" we might just get somewhere.
And maybe not get swayed by those who say:
Their bikes/ideas are best because they are "of the era" or "in the spirit", or
We must not forget why we started "we want to preserve that great era", or
You cannot allow updates/changes/modifications because "true" enthusiasts will be left behind, or
We do not want chequebook racing, or
etc' etc'
Because (sad to say) that is how clubs fade away.
My reason for asking the question is that (from what I see) in the last 10 years participation has fallen and I wonder if inappropriate rules have played a part.
-
something like this perhaps!
Pre65 :D
Pre70 :D
pre75 :D
pre78 :D
Pre81 :o twin shock factory stock std inc yamaha cantilever, No disc, liquid, linkage or USD
Pre85 :o
Pre90 :)
Pre95 :( oh oh what have i done?
So you want to push the 81 Maicos and Yamahas out of the class.
Pre 95 in five years time (maybe)
ooops :-[ make that Pre82! actually what is the best cut off point? 83, 84?
Probably Pre82 is close but the Husky 500 was still twin shock in 84 and the ATKs should also be considered. In 81 Maico, Husky, CZ and maybe some others were twin shock and the Yamahas were non linkage.
As for why do the rules need to change?
Basically we could never get a written interpretation. I asked and didn't get one. I now have one that says you can't convert a linkage single shock bike to non linkage or twin shock. Something we didn't have before. I still want an interpretation for what parts can be used etc.
Again the rules haven't really changed greatly.
I can only speak for myself I don't want to see the following
1. Linkage bikes converted
2. Frames or complete bikes brought in from the UK that are used in their Twin Shock class. You can buy a frame kit to fit most air cooled motors in a replica of a Maico frame.
No one is going to convert a KTM with PDS suspension to what they think is a EVO legal bike, but I can see frame kits being used and just frames being converted.
These would be bikes that didn't exist.
Why I'm I so out spoken? Well I was one of the guys up here in Queensland that introduced the EVO class up here in 1997, eight years before it was in the MoMS.
Now if anyone wants to put shit on me don't waste your time I won't react.
I won't feed the Forum Trolls.
Heaven VMX and QVMX proposed a set of Evolution rules through the correct process.
That proposal was then butchered in the CMX/CDT minutes by omitting a number of sub-clauses pertaining to replica and safety replacement items. Then that butchered version was used by some parties to misrepresent the proposed rules at a Queensland meeting and malign QVMX and Heaven VMX.
At MA Commission level we are still unable to ascertain if our correct and full proposal was even discussed.
We wrote a letter to MA regarding the omission and resulting concerns that our proposal had not been treated fairly. To date we have received no response and no corrective action has been taken to our knowledge.
However, how the omissions of parts of our proposal from the Commission documents came about is still unknown and no one will even investigate and certainly no correction has been made. The final minutes still contain the same errors in our proposal.
The minutes called for submissions from clubs and SCBs on the proposal and we submitted further information. Along with that second submission were signed letters supporting our proposal from 6 other clubs in NSW (each club has more than 100 members some many many more) that either run VMX/CDT classes or support VMX or CDT activities. None of these letters appear in the feedback to the Commission yet three individual views are taken into account apparently.
There is also noted in the final CMX minutes that feedback from the Queensland Classic Sub-committee was received. I have been reliably informed that this was not official correspondence via MQ. I also am reliably informed that the Sub-Committee has since been disbanded.
The final minutes of the CMX also notes feedback from the Victorian CMX Sub-committee but does not indicate whether they support or appose our proposal. I am reliably informed that it supported our proposal and was submitted correctly via MV.
The Commission or Rules Committee, we do not know who from the minutes, proposed a completely foreign set of rules that have no resemblance to the 2015 rules or our Proposal. Those rules have been implemented without any opportunity to comment or respond.
From Kevin's comments regarding pulling back all action or the class may be scrapped seems like some form of threat. I have no way of knowing if that came from MA or if Kevin just feels that so no further comment is really possible. I hope that it was just a feeling Kevin has.
We have been told continually that the MA system is democratic, this just does not appear to be the case.
Comment to the site moderators. If part or all of this post is considered too bold, informative or not in the interest of the reads? We do not give permission for you to 'snip it' as that could change the meaning of the post but total removal naturally is your prerogative.
-
Ross, please do not underestimate the skull-duggery and politics that are occurring behind he scenes.
You'll notice that HeavenVMX's post mentions numerous lots of unanswered questions and "funny business" (my words). This has been my experience also.
-
Late news there is now a 2016 Amendment Bulletin for download that includes the typo in the Pre75 reed valve rule.
Interestingly it is dated 16 November 2015
Is the date another typo or have they known for over a month and still released the download copy with the error in it.
The online 2016 MOMS was corrected a two days or so ago. The Amendment bulletin was not on the site when I looked yesterday.
-
something like this perhaps!
Pre65 :D
Pre70 :D
pre75 :D
pre78 :D
Pre81 :o twin shock factory stock std inc yamaha cantilever, No disc, liquid, linkage or USD
Pre85 :o
Pre90 :)
Pre95 :( oh oh what have i done?
So you want to push the 81 Maicos and Yamahas out of the class.
Pre 95 in five years time (maybe)
ooops :-[ make that Pre82! actually what is the best cut off point? 83, 84?
Probably Pre82 is close but the Husky 500 was still twin shock in 84 and the ATKs should also be considered. In 81 Maico, Husky, CZ and maybe some others were twin shock and the Yamahas were non linkage.
As for why do the rules need to change?
Basically we could never get a written interpretation. I asked and didn't get one. I now have one that says you can't convert a linkage single shock bike to non linkage or twin shock. Something we didn't have before. I still want an interpretation for what parts can be used etc.
Again the rules haven't really changed greatly.
I can only speak for myself I don't want to see the following
1. Linkage bikes converted
2. Frames or complete bikes brought in from the UK that are used in their Twin Shock class. You can buy a frame kit to fit most air cooled motors in a replica of a Maico frame.
No one is going to convert a KTM with PDS suspension to what they think is a EVO legal bike, but I can see frame kits being used and just frames being converted.
These would be bikes that didn't exist.
Why I'm I so out spoken? Well I was one of the guys up here in Queensland that introduced the EVO class up here in 1997, eight years before it was in the MoMS.
Now if anyone wants to put shit on me don't waste your time I won't react.
I won't feed the Forum Trolls.
Heaven VMX and QVMX proposed a set of Evolution rules through the correct process.
That proposal was then butchered in the CMX/CDT minutes by omitting a number of sub-clauses pertaining to replica and safety replacement items. Then that butchered version was used by some parties to misrepresent the proposed rules at a Queensland meeting and malign QVMX and Heaven VMX.
At MA Commission level we are still unable to ascertain if our correct and full proposal was even discussed.
We wrote a letter to MA regarding the omission and resulting concerns that our proposal had not been treated fairly. To date we have received no response and no corrective action has been taken to our knowledge.
However, how the omissions of parts of our proposal from the Commission documents came about is still unknown and no one will even investigate and certainly no correction has been made. The final minutes still contain the same errors in our proposal.
The minutes called for submissions from clubs and SCBs on the proposal and we submitted further information. Along with that second submission were signed letters supporting our proposal from 6 other clubs in NSW (each club has more than 100 members some many many more) that either run VMX/CDT classes or support VMX or CDT activities. None of these letters appear in the feedback to the Commission yet three individual views are taken into account apparently.
There is also noted in the final CMX minutes that feedback from the Queensland Classic Sub-committee was received. I have been reliably informed that this was not official correspondence via MQ. I also am reliably informed that the Sub-Committee has since been disbanded.
The final minutes of the CMX also notes feedback from the Victorian CMX Sub-committee but does not indicate whether they support or appose our proposal. I am reliably informed that it supported our proposal and was submitted correctly via MV.
The Commission or Rules Committee, we do not know who from the minutes, proposed a completely foreign set of rules that have no resemblance to the 2015 rules or our Proposal. Those rules have been implemented without any opportunity to comment or respond.
From Kevin's comments regarding pulling back all action or the class may be scrapped seems like some form of threat. I have no way of knowing if that came from MA or if Kevin just feels that so no further comment is really possible. I hope that it was just a feeling Kevin has.
We have been told continually that the MA system is democratic, this just does not appear to be the case.
Comment to the site moderators. If part or all of this post is considered too bold, informative or not in the interest of the reads? We do not give permission for you to 'snip it' as that could change the meaning of the post but total removal naturally is your prerogative.
Greg you are correct my statement RE possibly losing the class is just my gut feelings based on emails I have and other things which I will not elaborate on (so don't ask). It is also based on experience at SCB and MA level. Yes the Qld Historic Sub-Committee has been suspended due to some members not being willing to stop pursuing certain matters. This is MQ business so ask them if you want to know, but be warned like MA they are feed up with it all.
In my opinion anything we do now has to be a united approach and we may need to compromise.
I use the word "we" because although getting a statement saying converting linkage bikes to twin shock (or non linkage) is not permitted, there are other matters that I believe have not been resolved.
-
Gents - the other small one that was also previously mentioned but has dropped by the way is the requirement to move number plates 200mm or more backwards from the riders footrest - not such an easy task on some of the older bikes.
Wrote to MA asking for clarification round this since it appears to have not been a problem for so many years and additionally at major meets transponders are used????
See what they come back with.
-
Kevin, We don't buy this, go through the right channels b.s. to get answers. HeavenVMX has proved that in his above post with numerous questions asked and absolutely no answers received.
What concerns us is the way the latest MoMS is reading regarding the Evolution class.
Below is what was written on this forum on February 22 / 2011 from forum member 211 ( who was then, and still is now, the Chairman of Classic Vintage Motocross ) 211 was also the one who wrote the Evolution class rules into the book from the get go.
211kawasaki
Guest
Re: Those poms have lost the plot.
<Reply #40 on: February 22, 2011, 06:32:55 PM>
Comrad Jikov,
leave the Evo's ( whopps, sorry thats Evolution) alone :)
Evo was the progression/next step from the pre 78 and 75 and was the next step taken with a lead from the American performance. I think its worked very well as a class and should be left alone. There is Pre 85 in the book if you have a disk front end or water cooling so there are plenty of options. Evo is in my view deserving as a place in the history of the progression of the sport - when it was put in the rule book none of us would have ever considered pre 85 or dare I say pre 90 but one is also in and pre 90 may well be soon as well, who knows?
What I do know is that modifying later gear for any aspect of the sport is not allowed - period
211
If at first you don't succeed, give up and drink beer
How this statement is even remotely associated to the 2016 MoMS rules beggars belief.
And you wonder why we feel as we do
-
Hind sight is 20/20 & people have to move with the times. I don't know what went on behind closed doors (don't want to) but if it's all done & dusted for 2016, why keep on about it? Embrace the current rulings & have some fun building or riding a compliant bike. The alleged "franken bike" has been dismissed as illegal for EVO (for obvious reasons) so why fear it? If the EVO rulings eat you out that much, simply don't compete in the class. I still think the 10 metre rule should apply, pre'75, pre'78 & Evo bikes are easy to spot, if looks like either from 10 metres, that's where it fits.
K
-
And I think we might stop at this point. Plenty of good discussion and I gather most people now understand the issues. If anyone wants to start a thread on how to fix the situation feel free, but remember the usual caveats of not attacking individuals or organisations. Please stick to the point and what can be done, rather than indulge in idle speculation.
-
suggest a tour of the MA web site and the minutes as published. the finals are available to see.
-
Our MA?
http://www.dirtbikeworld.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1962978#post1962978
-
Hmmm.. I had meant to lock this topic, must have forgotten? It is now locked.
-
No you haven't lol
-
Still not. Maybe because you've realised the threatening PMs aren't worth the hot air they're typed on?
-
There is way more to be gained from a united community than there is from this ongoing divided one.
Post Classic titles has the room to run an extra class,
Pure EVO(how it was in the day) and
Super EVO for those who are keen to build high-bred Hot-Rods.
I couldn't imagine any trouble getting full grids in either.
Time heals, even rifts healed.
Surely all involved would prefer a united community instead of this ongoing long term divission? Surely.
Every one wins. Even MA, they could claw back some respect and more cash flow to-boot.
Unity, clear guide-lines and harmony spells more entries and more importantly is way more appealing to any new would-be members.
-
Will never happen Mick while teflon is in charge
-
Super Evo = Pre-90.
Don't see why there needs to be a special class for the handful of people who want to build a non-linkage, air-cooled, drum braked bike out of bits that came long after the non-linkage, air-cooled, drum braked bikes were a spent force.
There is one person who is responsible for the angst - at the most generous, there is one person who can make the angst go away. None of this will improve while he still holds a position of power.
-
Yes but Nathan these " special people" also want a four stroke only class as well.
Pity none of them actually turn up
-
Gents - the other small one that was also previously mentioned but has dropped by the way is the requirement to move number plates 200mm or more backwards from the riders footrest - not such an easy task on some of the older bikes.
Wrote to MA asking for clarification round this since it appears to have not been a problem for so many years and additionally at major meets transponders are used????
See what they come back with.
Yes another un-minuted change to the rules. No mention or reference to this in the Commission minutes or the final commission minutes but there it is. Just about every bike in Pre60-Pre78 and many '78 model in EVOs (if anyone bothers with a '78/79 model for EVO, most likely not) will have to bogey up number plates just like we did back in '76/77. It was a stupid idea then and it is just as stupid now.
The removal of the requirement for Tyre valve caps (this rule has been in the MOMS since I started in 1973 and is still in other classifications) and removing the requirement for the external of engine & gearbox to be unaltered. Both changes do not appear in any minutes or final minutes from the CMX Commission. :-\ ???
-
The removal of the requirement for Tyre valve caps (this rule has been in the MOMS since I started in 1973 and is still in other classifications)
Yeah, spotted that one : not only have they always been compulsory but for a while in roadracing in particular they had to be steel caps or death by 1000 cuts (later amended to remove the steel necessity). Obviously caps have some function so why, in these arse-covering years are they no longer of any interest ?
While I am all for less rules rather than more, this one and the case of the disappearing shark fin have me scratching my head after all the huffing and puffing that was previously generated to justify them...
-
WTF??? I have definitely locked this twice now and it still keeps going. If this thing unlocks again, I am deleting the prick of a thing.
Oh and Nathan, not one threatening PM or phone call or email or visit by men in dark suits. But I think this thread has gone on long enough, last time we did all of this it caused a lot of discontent and I said at the time that in future I'd not let the forum get bogged down in administration of the sport stuff. I let this one run a little while because clearly it IS an important issue that needed an airing, but that's been done and more discussion can only be against the forum's best interests.