OzVMX Forum
Clubroom => Competition => Topic started by: KTM47 on December 16, 2015, 12:27:15 pm
-
First off why did I start a new post
I didn't want what I had to say confused with the other posts which are already at 7 pages and no I haven't read them all because most of them are wrong.
When I read the slightly changed Evolution class rules I emailed MA and basically asked the following.
Question in blue answer in red.
I have read the new Evolution class rules and despite the hysteria that I'm sure will occur I think I could live with them provided the following is clarified.
Does "13.14.6.2 Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed." mean that machines that do not comply with 13.14.6.3 (the three main rules) when they came from the manufacturer can not be converted to
a) No linkage suspension
b) No disc (note spelling) brakes.
c) Air cooled motors.
i.e. if someone can convert a single shock linkage bike to the class this is what the majority of riders don't want.
Morning Kevin
Yes you are correct. Under this rule you cannot modify a later model single shock linkage machine to twin shock.
Kind regards,
I also asked about what components can be fitted and yes you can fit others provided you don't have to modify them to fit them. ie "J" model Yamaha forks are fine because they fit straight in.
Just another point the PWK Kelhin carby has been legal for a while under the old rules. I have one on my Maico now and yes the MA office said it was legal.
-
Now lets stop the hysteria and get on with it.
If you want to know what you can use email MA.
-
Still 'grey area' as far as I'm concerned :-)
-
Just another point. I'm suspect MA is getting feed up with the amount of time CMX/CDT takes up. If you want the class to survive I suggest everyone backs off several notches.
The frakenbikes can't, I repeat can't be used.
-
"Later model" now clearly means 1990 and later. This is indisputable, when you read the words.
Any "we think it means..." emails from anyone within MA, are worthless until the matter is tested through the MA system (this goes for any issue, not just this one).
And if it requires an explanation beyond what every punter can read in the manual, then what's in the manual is obviously rubbish.
-
For forksake Nathan let it go, the bikes can't be converted to EVO class.
Your turn now you love to have the last word. I'm stopping now.
-
Just another point. I'm suspect MA is getting feed up with the amount of time CMX/CDT takes up. If you want the class to survive I suggest everyone backs off several notches.
Well theres an easy fix to that isn't there , whose working for who ? must be a real pain in the arse for them when the people who pay their wages are taking up their time ::)
The frakenbikes can't, I repeat can't be used.
-
(http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e204/tmbill/popcorn_zpsf8b9fcfc.jpg) (http://s40.photobucket.com/user/tmbill/media/popcorn_zpsf8b9fcfc.jpg.html)
-
I am sorry to say Kevin but your email is not worth the paper it is printed on. As usual we are back to interpretation at the track by some official. How you interpret the rules in the way you have is difficult to understand. Even your question to MA is open to interpretation.
MA also have a process to offer interpretation of rules so that all officials and riders get the same message and a short email to you is not part of that process.
It is disturbing that you have suggested that MA have indicated that they are sick of talking about CMX/CDT because we are taking up too much time. Can we quote you on that? Last time I looked my licence cost, rider fee, permit cost etc etc is exactly the same as MX, HRR, RR etc.
Can you give out the author of the email you are holding? I notice you have removed it. Also the person that suggests we should back off would be helpful?
-
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.
-
Should everyone interested in the Evo rules send an email to MA to ask for clarification on what you have posted here as gospel Kevin?
Fair dinkum, I'm sure a class of 6 grade school kids could write a more concise set of rules for Evo than that which MA has come out with.
In a nutshell, there should be no need for any interpretation of the rules. It should be spelt out, word for word, exactly what is and what isn't allowed. SIMPLE
-
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.
Thank you Graeme
If you doubt what I have posted email MA. Also please note something from MA is just that from Motorcycling Australia not an individual.
-
And that's the problem: it's like going to the doctor's, and getting medical advice from the receptionist.
They might be right, they might not be - if you want THE answer, then it needs to come from the only person truely qualified to give it.
-
And that's the problem: it's like going to the doctor's, and getting medical advice from the receptionist.
They might be right, they might not be - if you want THE answer, then it needs to come from the only person truely qualified to give it.
Ahhh.. but what if the Dr. decides you need to see a specialist? That will be a scrutineer on the day at a particular event.
-
Sure. Still better than asking the receptionist.
-
Kev, I'd say the way you worded the question to MA actually gave them an easy "out".
You asked about modifying a "machine". No brainer answer....
The question should actually be modifying "parts" of a machine, and up to what year can those "parts" come from? ....right?
Those are the 2 questions I have, but sheesh I dont want to waste their precious "time" with time consuming CMX queries....... :o
-
In a nutshell, there should be no need for any interpretation of the rules. It should be spelt out, word for word, exactly what is and what isn't allowed. SIMPLE
100% correct of course but how you will ever get there is beyond me .
In this techno world I would have thought that you should be able to feed all the relative information into a computer and get a machine without emotion , ego or personality to work out and print out the rules for what you want .
The human factor is the weak link personalities ,Opinions , egos and agendas from rule makers to rule enforcers will always create issues .
Another way is hand the whole thing over to a brains trust ( with no motorcycle background ) just give them a list of available bikes and parts for the era and let them formulate a set of rules.
With no motorcycle background theres little chance of ego or agenda creeping in , they are just paid to do the job :)
Hand it over to the machines .
-
A far simpler thing to do would be to make it Pre 82. Include all bikes originally manufactured with air cooling, drum brakes and non linkage suspension up to and after this date and exclude all bikes and components fitted to such bikes that were not originally fitted with air cooling, drum brakes and non linkage suspension
-
Something like that. Or even the 2016 version of the rules, but limited to Pre-85 would be better than the nonsense we have now.
We all know where Evo is supposed to fit in the order of VMX classes - between Pre-78 and Pre-85.
Incredible that the powers that be are the only ones oblivious to this.
-
And that's the problem: it's like going to the doctor's, and getting medical advice from the receptionist.
They might be right, they might not be - if you want THE answer, then it needs to come from the only person truely qualified to give it.
I didn't ask the receptionist and I'm sure the question was passed onto those who could give an answer. So the answer is correct.
I have asked the following question before from MA. Who do you ask RE matters like this (not exact question). The answer basically is all correspondence or queries must (I repeat must) go through the MA Office. So any answer from anyone other than the MA Office is not legitimate. The exception to this would be an eligibility scrutineer at a race meeting.
I also did ask another question RE modifying parts and didn't get a full answer, but was told the Yamaha "J" model forks are legal, I assuming because they bolt straight in ie don't have to be modified to fit.
If anyone else wants further clarification please email MA.
-
ooooh tough crowd here - but then always has been - some of you would eat your own children I reckon - just like some of us Collingwood supporters. Rather than continue to debate on here, assume and cast allegations why don't you do what some of us have already down and contact MA re the issue you have. It always happens that it goes round and round in circles here, we give Bill heaps to laugh at, and get no where. It does seem like a rather large move for the EVO rules form what is needed but we have said before - the Forum is useless really for sorting it out - get off your bum and chase an answer.
-
ooooh tough crowd here - but then always has been - some of you would eat your own children I reckon - just like some of us Collingwood supporters. Rather than continue to debate on here, assume and cast allegations why don't you do what some of us have already down and contact MA re the issue you have. It always happens that it goes round and round in circles here, we give Bill heaps to laugh at, and get no where. It does seem like a rather large move for the EVO rules form what is needed but we have said before - the Forum is useless really for sorting it out - get off your bum and chase an answer.
I agree Ross
Except for one thing. I really don't think the rules have changed greatly at all. Anyway I have asked questions of MA Office and hopefully others have too.
Now did we all get the same answers?
-
Even if you ask individually and get the same answer surely that speaks volumes about the systems inadequacies :-\
Surely you should not have to ask individually , what's correct should be written clearly and be able to be understood my licence holders and potential newcomers to the sport without having to ring an office for clarification .
-
Ross, the point is that regardless of what comes from MA (in whatever form), what really matters is how it goes through the judicial system.
If you think something is legal, you have every right to build it and present it at scrutiny. This is the ONLY real way of testing any questionable rule.
If I'd seen the PWK on Kevin's bike under the old rules, I'd have challenged it - the only way it could have been legal is if the "period" for Evo was undefined (as I'd been saying it was). It's definitely legal under the new rules.
It does appear that MA has a problem with saying what they mean when they write rules, at least anything relating to CMX/CDT... We've never been able to get verbal clarification from the Chair, even in the years before tempers became frayed...
So us punters can only go on what's in the book. If we need to build bikes or send emails or know the secret handshake, then the rules have failed us.
-
Now I have to check two threads for correct grammar.
-
If I'd seen the PWK on Kevin's bike under the old rules, I'd have challenged it - the only way it could have been legal is if the "period" for Evo was undefined (as I'd been saying it was). It's definitely legal under the new rules.
I think he might have meant a "PJ" Nathan, can't imagine a PWK would fit in EVO with the old rules.
-
ha humbug, when evolution machines were raced, they were raced as manufactured, with a bit of tweeking from factory specialists, not raping and pillaging of anything on two wheels, Evolution was just fine, now it's going to be a class of shitboxes made up of whatever bike. Just introduce a class called, no real meaning bitza shit.
what a shame a " revolution of classic bikes" unaltered, will now be classed with any put together shitbox, because a bunch of whingers dont know the meaning, unless it's written in every lanuage, of oem.
-
Nathan - whilst I agree with the "physicals" you mention have you missed my point that 99% of the people on here are just having a whinge through this thread, this time, which gets no where. That is the point I am making - pages and pages of going around in circles here, arguing amongst each other, oftentimes pissing others off is not getting the cause anywhere. Maybe emailing MA is not the answer but this type of thread doesn't help the cause in my opinion - they tend to become very negative very quickly - and personal. I for one know some of the commissioners on here and can guarantee that they have the movement at heart better than most - why the rules have come out like they have I don't know but instead of whinging I will ask when next I see them.
-
If I'd seen the PWK on Kevin's bike under the old rules, I'd have challenged it - the only way it could have been legal is if the "period" for Evo was undefined (as I'd been saying it was). It's definitely legal under the new rules.
I think he might have meant a "PJ" Nathan, can't imagine a PWK would fit in EVO with the old rules.
No PWK and I haven't made a secret of it being fitted. I don't fit things and then see if it passes scrutineering I ask first.
Again the rules have not changed a lot, but now I have an interpretation (from the MA office the administrators of our sport) that says you can not convert a non linkage single shock bike to twin shock (or non linkage) for the class.
Keep all this up and there is a strong chance the class will go.
-
Kevvy, this class has already gone. Stay tuned
-
How do you work that out Kev :-\
-
Nathan - whilst I agree with the "physicals" you mention have you missed my point that 99% of the people on here are just having a whinge through this thread, this time, which gets no where. That is the point I am making - pages and pages of going around in circles here, arguing amongst each other, oftentimes pissing others off is not getting the cause anywhere. Maybe emailing MA is not the answer but this type of thread doesn't help the cause in my opinion - they tend to become very negative very quickly - and personal. I for one know some of the commissioners on here and can guarantee that they have the movement at heart better than most - why the rules have come out like they have I don't know but instead of whinging I will ask when next I see them.
I know three of the four commissioners, and get along well with two of them.
But these things are way beyond whether someone is a good bloke to have a chat with in the pits.
We pay a lot of money, and deal with a lot of beuracracy, in the expectation that the sport will be administered fairly, professionally, with the sport's best interests at heart, and without personal agendas.
And I am repeatedly disappointed.
-
Hey Kevvy, Do you know what interpretation of the Evolution class rules 211 had on February 22 2011?
-
so Nathan - other than comment on here what have you done about your "disappointment".
Not being narky - just asking?
-
Nathan, Let him know how your letter of complaint about a Commission member, ( sent through the right channels at MA,) went and also fill him on the kangaroo court assessment of his performance by the individual appointed by MA.
-
Ross, I put in a formal complaint. The way the whole process was handled, left me far more disappointed (and NOT because they didn't agree with me).
Worse, the dodgy behaviour seems to have gotten worse.