Have your say

[211kawasaki]

Guys and Girls
as you will be no doubt aware there have been submissions to the Commission for some rather extensive changes to the sport. In summary you might see

A split to a classic and post classic format
inclusion of pre 90 pre 80 and age groups in more modern classes
increased age groups in other classes
removal of classes

Im letting you all know because as I have said before the Commission will not take any action unless there is input from your local State Historic committee, no response no action. The Commission will not and can not make changes unless there is a positive response and in this instance I would hope that we get more than one reply from the states. I would expect that if there is a poor response then nothing will change. And if thats the outcome then thats OK too.

My point is that you need to make your views known to your State body and have them formulate a response to the proposals that the Commission may put forward after this weekends Commission meetings. Have your say and make sure that should there be change you have excersized your democratic rights and had your say.

To the best of my knowledge there are no submissions for the 2011 DT or VMX meetings at National Level, if you want to have a National event lobby your club and have a go at running it. All submissions will be given proper and due consideration but without one there will be no event and I cant remember in my 20 years in the sport a time when VMX didnt have a National Championship.

Regards

Dave Tanner

[VMX247]

cheers Mr T have copied/pasted and sent off to the western troops. 

[Brian Watson]

Dave is correct....get out and get your clubs involved...tho many of us will remeber wondering what to do in 2004 2005 when the VMX Nationals were not held...

[firko]

Dave....I'm in favour of all of the above except possibly the pre '80 classification. Nothing against pre '80 bikes per se but I see that with pre '78, pre '80 and Evo all being in the system we could have too much class 'intermingling'. Conceptually there isn't enough engineering variation between the three divisions. I'd rather the five year gap between divisions remain.

I realise that there's some opposition to age groups being introduced to the post '78 (post classic) division but I suspect that much of that opposition comes from racers who entered the sport after the age group systen became dormant in the classic division. I feel that the once the Post Classic era racers experience age group racing they'd understand just why it was the main attraction in drawing retired racers back therefore adding to the almosr overnight success of VMX during the formative 80's/90's. In my opinion, the removal of age group classes has been a major factor in the drop off in pre '75 competitor numbers and for the early noughties downturn in the sport in general. I'm not overlooking natural atrition and the introduction of newer classes having their effect but the exodus of a high percentage of first generation vintage racers in the early part of this decade can be connected to the 'dumbing' down of the age group system.

Get your clubs right onto this. It's an important step in mapping out our sports future. Splitting our sport into two distinct eras is probably the biggest change in VMX history.

[Rossvickicampbell]

Allison - I believe VMXWA have already sent their comments off?  I hope it was in support of the split?

Disappointing no hands up yet for the NATS next year.

Fatboy - can I come back to Tassie?

cheers

Rossco

[Tossa]

I beleive the VMXWA reply was in line with the club constitution and that being they supported the split at the pre75 level.

[Freakshow]

 unless there is input from your local State Historic committee, no response no action. The Commission will not and can not make changes unless there is a positive response and in this instance I would hope that we get more than one reply from the states. .

Dave Tanner

Where do i find this person or persons ?? there not very active if they exsist.

[Freakshow]

im might disagree on that, the club whoever it is that putting up the" historic consultant isnt insuring he is getting the depth of views of the other clubs.  MY club wouldnt no what vintage is, and all the others probally wouldnt have a clue either unless its RR, so who as asking the riders that do - the questions ? never seen or heard of these people who represent me.  how do i get on the committee that talks to you guys, not via the PAid office exec sitting in MA who must be doing this on my behalf ?  i hate process but point me in the right direction..

[GMC]

sorry Dave, seems like where living in a fish bowl!

this years event had 3 major changes WITHOUT any consultation of clubs

1- the use of a venue the week before the Nats for practice?

2- the changes made to allow 6 competitors to consitute a title

3- the dropping of age groups in pre75

If everything must go thru State bodies how were these changes made without consultation?

so will changes continue to be made if MA see fit?

Cheers Trev, I'm sure i will upset someone, but if the process is to work it must come from the clubs and not individuals.

I will wait with baited breath for the onsuing barrage from worm haters

First up, I’m not a Worms hater, I’m just starting to hate the continual whinging that you seem to do.
It seemed like you were trying to undermine the Vic. Nationals from the start with your conspiracy theories.


1- the use of a venue the week before the Nats for practice?
17.12.3.4 alludes to this, but it is in the Motocross / Supercross section.
It has nothing to do with Vintage MX or other disciplines unless you can find it in the “all discipline” section

2- the changes made to allow 6 competitors to consitute a title
I’m not sure how this came about but if the classes were dropped altogether because of low entries there would have been many more complaints.
I think it was only for the older classes as well.
I don’t beleive MA had anything to gain from this either way.


3- the dropping of age groups in pre75
The age classes weren’t dropped, just the capacity / age classes.
As it was there wouldn’t have been enough competitors to make up age classes in all capacities with the poor turn out.


If everything must go thru State bodies how were these changes made without consultation?
The Nats have been run with various format changes over the years to suit the host clubs situation.

[evo550]

im might disagree on that, the club whoever it is that putting up the" historic consultant isnt insuring he is getting the depth of views of the other clubs.  MY club wouldnt no what vintage is, and all the others probally wouldnt have a clue either unless its RR, so who as asking the riders that do - the questions ? never seen or heard of these people who represent me.  how do i get on the committee that talks to you guys, not via the PAid office exec sitting in MA who must be doing this on my behalf ?  i hate process but point me in the right direction..

Freaky,
Your state controling body (Motorcycling South Australia) should have a couple of people in a commitee representing VMX in your state, you can, as an individual, or as a club, put foward proposals to this commitee for changes. These proposals along with all the other state and territory proposals are then put to the committee that 211 speaks of. This committee is the MA committee they then decide on wheather to impliment these changes or not Australia wide.
Pretty sure that's how it works. Changes aren't made by bailing someone up in the pits after a race meeting. Put your ideas on paper and get it to your state controling body.
By the way are you over medicated ? Your typing has become atrocious

[SAABCOMBI]

I would have to agree

[GMC]

the point is if major changes are made,

The point is they weren't major changes.


1- the use of a venue the week before the Nats for practice?
Where then in MOM's does it say this..
The only referance I know of is 17.12.3.4
and this is in the Motocross / Supercross section.

3- the dropping of age groups in pre75
Again, where in MOM's does it say the age groups must be in capacity as well.
Maybe it was a bad decision but it is still up to the host club.

[211kawasaki]

Folks
It works like this
MA and all the LCBs (state bodies like MQ MNSW etc) are not a federation and as such the state bodies tell MA what to do. Not the clubs but the State body. For a proposal to be put by a club it should go from the club to the state historic committee then to MA and MA then passes it to their Commission for advice on how to proceed. This advice is ONLY made when it is felt by the Commission that a positive improvement could be gained by the addition (or removal) of some component to the rule book. This advice is then put back to the State Committee for agreement or not.
The Commission will not and has not acted without a response from the states, it dosnt have to be all of them but it has to be a response.
The proposal will not get any further than a discussion piece unless there is a response from the states, (after the final recomendation if anything is made and re-submitted to the LCB) the main topic has been vented in this and other forums so its common knowledge; what needs to be done now is lobby your committee for a yes or no.

Worms has used his democratic right and commented off topic, I will say however that the 6 rider rule change was an attempt to get more bikes in the pre 65 and 60 classes and only relates to these classes and is a trial only. Like the Pre 68 that was also a trial but unsupported it will fail if you dont get behind it. I think it is positive and attracting riders to the nationals. But agree with him that clubs need to have their say; however so can the indervidual such as Col Metcher and his proposal.

Freaky, SA either dosnt have a committee or needs one or if they have one they dont care. Suggest you contact MSA and see if you need to form one to make sure that the SA population has their say. Goes for everyone, I know QLD has a committee with active VMX membership but dont know what the other states have. It dosnt take a lot of effort (I did the QLD one for 12 years).

All the comments from the stake holders such as VMXWA, Col and others will be the basis for recomendations, its been great to get so many responses to the proposal but it will need agreed to again locally in about August for there to be any changes.

Im going to be at CD7 and if there are any questions or need for anyone to understand this or any other problem or issue just look for the Kawasaki collection and come and have a beer and a chat.

211

[Nathan S]

Pre-80 is a dumb idea.

Either:
Pre-75, pre-78, pre-81, pre-85 (while there are exceptions, this roughly translates as short-travel, medium travel, Evo, and pre-85).
or;
Pre-75, pre-79, Evo pre-85 (again, there are exceptions but roughly: short-travel, less-than-12"-of-travel, 12"of travel and pre-85)

The above does a far better job of classifying bikes by their broad technology groups, and keeping the groups roughly the same size, than changing Evo to pre-80.

The other option is to ditch the bike ages, and make the rules reflect the bike's original level of technology (in much the same way as Evo does). This has the advantage of removing the need for lists and the carry-over rule.


All of these have the disadvantage of putting people who have bought/built bikes into more competitive classes. Think of all the YZ250H owners, for just one really obvious example.

[LWC82PE]

http://www.motorcyclingsa.org.au/