With respect Ted your figure of 90% is way out. I have fielded many calls on this in the past few days and the majority would disagree with being included in your 90%.
The rule as it stands states that any later component that is modified to comply with Evo is not allowed, so most of these examples are nonsence. In fact the rule leaves only a very narrow opportunity to legally use later components.
As I read it, your objection lies with the current rule, not Dave Tanner's interpretation of it. I've had a legal opinion of the rule as it stands, and it is that the interpetration taken literally is correct.
If you disagree with the wording of the rule, the way forward is to submit a very carefully thought through submission of your proposed change. You need to be very carefull in doing this as it's so easy to fix one perceived problem and open up a host of others.
The way forward is not to make personal attacks on voluntary officials. I personally appreciate (and I'm sure others do also) your contibuition to VMX as a rider, providing bikes to others, and as a generous sponsor,however it is counterproductive to aggressively bag volunteer officials, pour fuel on this fire, and stir an already bad situation only weeks out from the event.
This forum goes ape before every Nats, and it's not helpfull
It is interesting that the Evolution class was established over 10 years ago, and over 8 Evo Nationals have been run and won. In all that time there has (to my best information) been no protests nor submissions for rule chages, so obviously it has served the sport well.
So, some people feel a tweeking of the Evo rule is needed, but world war three only weeks out from the Nats? I don't think so.
The rules are what they are. We should let the system of appointed officials, protest proceedure etc sort it out, and just get on with it.
After the event make whatever submissions you see fit.
