EVOLUTION/OEM - What Is Your Interpretation?

[DJRacing]

Maico31, maybe thats the difference, you guys mark out your own natural terrian tracks (do you have scrutineering and MA officals at your meetings?). If you had to race on man-made MX tracks with table tops and large jumps things could be different?? Just a thought

[Maico31]

Yes we have scrutineering and officials present. No one really checks the legality of anyones bikes, it's mainly a trust thing, but if something was obviously illegal i'm sure a keen eye would spot it. We get up to 100 riders at our meetings so they must be doing something right.

[FDR]

Bahnsy, I am one of those boffins you describe so well, who do you think you are to describe ma,mv volounteers, officals in this way.

Scenario 4, 1980 KX 250 is a single shock linkage rear end, pre 85 bike.

The rules for pre 75 & earlier started off like much like the current evo class rules,very basic and over time have evolved to what we have now.
Anyone can write to the (MA)classic mx committee with concerns,changes, additions to rules and it will be discussed and voted on by them, you can also apply to be join the classic mx commision.

Additions to the supp regs for up coming Aussie titles could be in place if people made the effort to write to the MA classic management committee.

Motorcycling Victoria backed, Victorian classic motorcross management committe run the VCM series which has an evo class, evo class was introduced in 2007 as per GCR's.
The class turned out to be very popular with no problems encountered, however parts such as 83 CR or 83 RM forks are not allowed.
Hybrid bikes made from EVO bike parts or aftermarket parts from the era are acceptable.





 

[Phil]

While I commend Bahnsy and Nathans concerns that potential cheats are hiding behind every tree just waiting to manipulate the rulebook and ruin our sport for ever, the reality of it all is that it's probably never going to happen.
I've been involved in the sport since 1989 and have seen a lot of dodgy bikes turn up at race meetings. Thankfully the self governing aspect of vintage racing has ensured that those 'rule benders' recieve a polite tap on the shoulder and be told what illegalities are adorning their bikes and how to fix the problem. Just about all of the offenders have taken the criticisms on board and within a short time were playing by the status quo. Those that arc'd up and refused to change their bikes were, after a while either told not to bring the bike back or gave up and moved on to bother another sport. Thankfully these blokes can be counted on one hand over a 20 year period.
The bottom line-----Don't worry boys, the vintage community looks after and sorts out its own.  Have a happy New Year.

[BAHNZY]

Dear Pigmy
Your reply "Bahnsy, I am one of those boffins you describe so well, who do you think you are to describe ma,mv volounteers, officals in this way" Curiously i wonder what i wrote that has got you so riled. My comment was;

If we are of the belief (As YSS posted "The rules are made by MA , not us") that a bunch of Management boffins from MA and their local affiliates MA(V), MA(NSW) etc. sit in a room and come up with the new rules then we/us/you are mistaken.
Changes to, and the inclusion of new rules are put forward by MA licence holders via their respective Management Committee's. Yes MA has the final word on them, but they don't initiate them. I think that the reality from MA's point of view is that the least amount of changes would be the best situation as they would take a position of "If it ain't broke, then don’t fix it"

The word boffin aside (which according to the websters dictionary is slang for a scientist engaged in research) and that i am one year out in the Kawasaki scenaro, is the information blatantly incorrect and/or disrespectfull?

[Nathan S]

.... rider A is allowed to race with a magura hydraulic clutch system, or why rider B on a RM400 has modified his barrel to fit a Yamaha V Force reed system or why rider C has a PVL billet ignition system is fitted to his Maico and the list goes on.

Hydro clutch? Who cares!? Assuming someone does care (and isn't just using it as a distraction/red herring to hide their own bike's illegalities), then it is probably legal on an Evo bike.

V-Force? Did the RM400 have reeds to start with? If so, then it's legal.

PVL ignition? Definitely A-OK.

I see the source of your frustration. It's well and good to say that things are self-regulating and nobody is riding for sheep-stations, but as a scrutineer, if you pull anyone up on anything other than spectacularly blatant cheating, their first response will almost inevitably be "but so-and-so has a such-and-such on his bike! Why are you picking on me!?".
If you follow all of the possible paths, you end up with only a couple of possible outcomes:
Everyone turns a blind eye; or you crack down hard on everyone.
Either option will piss some/many people off.

Alternatively, taking a positive, pro-active approach by ensuring the rules are carefully worded and enforcable eliminates all this guff and stress.

[firko]

Now Now, come on boys! This thread has been a great example of courtesy, restraint and respect for others opinions. Let's not get niggly. I think my old mate Phil has got it all in perspective. Dodgy bikes and dodgy owners don't hang around long. We have been self policing for years now and to tighten any percieved loopholes wouldn't be worth the effort.
Surprisingly there have only been a small number of rule fudgers in the 20 years I've been sniffing around old bikes and rarely do they last very long in the sport. The one exception is a well known Queenslander who has had rule book blindness for nearly as long as the sport has been around. Right from the early days of pre 75 when he fitted 77 model forks and engine top end on his '73 CR125 right through to his reasonably recent CR480 retro converted to twin shock, he has shown a serious inability to understand the rules that the rest of us take as gospel. Thankfully he rarely leaves Queensland these days.

[Nathan S]

With Regard to Self Regulation:
I've seen it in action, and provided you remain within the one club/class/area, it will serve you well.
But look at the stress people feel when they go further afield.

Before the Coffs Nats, I was shit-scared that I'd get picked up for something... Is the post-75 crank in my pre-75 bike legal? What about the post-75 rear hub on the same bike? What about the alloy brake arm on my pre-70 bike?
Etc.

All of these are trivial things, and I feel they're within the spirit of the rules, but they also live in the grey area of the rulebook, and I'd potentially be at the mercy of a suitably uptight/vindictive scrutineer... (and yes, my first response would be to point out how wide-spead such things are on other people's bikes..).

Sure, the Coffs Nats turned out to be free of any of that sort of shit, and it was great, but the stress of the unknown was there - and I know I was far from the only one feeling it.


Well written rules benefit everybody, and harm nobody.


edit: Upon further reflection, I've recognised two other points.
1. Concise rules make it easier, not harder. No stressing about whether your bike is legal or whether you're gonna get hosed by someone who has found a more liberal interpretation of the rules.
2. Dammit.... got distracted by work stuff. I forget now.

[BAHNZY]

Nathan, Firko,
You are both right and I personally couldn't give a rats who turns up and on what. As i have said before, Build It, Bring It & We'll find a class for you to race it. Every one is also correct in that the EVO movement has been running sweet without to many issues for many years, if i can gage from some of the forum members, better than 12. The issue is that, as Pigmy commented, the EVO rules only found there way into the GCR's last year. If someone wants to run the most exotic hybid that you couldn't even imagine to build yourself, i would be the one taking the photo's of it and drooling over the prospect of owning and riding it myself.

Now that the GCR's are in place we now have the contingent (a minority i may add) of riders that want to question, and then argue over a bikes validity against the GCR's. All i want to do is race with my mates, watch other mates make fools of themselves then have a few drinks & laughs afterwards without the greif as noted above.

[BAHNZY]

Actually what i want is;
- 4 Classic Dirt (styled) events in 1 year. (not race meetings)
- One in Qld, One in NSW, One at Barrabool and 1 grass track locations.
Just go ride with my mates, drink and be merry and go home stuffed, hanging out for the next one.
 

[firko]

Nathan the nervousness you felt at Coffs is natural for your first venture into the Nats concept. We all worry about that unforseen situation. I was myself concerned about whether my alloy swingarm would pass muster for pre 70 and I wrote the bloody rulebook!
If every potential situation was covered by the rulebook it would be as thick as a brick and too complicated. The self regulation system has worked perfectly for twenty years and in my time at the pointy end of eligibility legislation we've only had two major shit fights that have needed legal interpitation. The first situation, the infamous Vern Grayson Cheney Triumph legality case resulted in the bike being permanantly banned from pre '65 and Vern, a great racer and his beautiful bike being lost to the sport forever. The other case, the Frank Veradi Pre '65 BSA Special case still raises its ugly head as it almost did in Coffs Harbour. I mention these cases for the following reason. In the Grayson case it went to civil court and eventually the High court. Vern had the services of a QC and a room full of legal experts were called by both the defence and MA's legal team to give opinion on the legality of the bike. I still have reams of paperwork covering the case and in the end it still came down to opinion, not written fact.

With the Frank Veradi BSA case the prosecuters(MA) accepted that Veradi had built the bike prior to 1965 and had viewed many photographs and films of the bike in action over a forty year span. The bone of contention was as the bike was in a continuous program of improvement, when did the bike become so improved that it was no longer a legitimate pre 65 bike? Once again there was nothing the rulebook could tell us what we didn't already know. The bike had period suspension and hubs/wheels, a legit engine and had been proven beyond doubt that the bike had been racing prior to 1965. Despite the inarguable rulebook legal aspects of the bike, it was still protested every time it raced and still is to this day because the bikes detractors claim it's been modified from its pre 65 condition.

These cases were extremely intense and overly detailed in their complexity but in the end the most well researched rulebook wouldn't have helped. Opinion was the deciding factor in both cases. The human being is the most vigilant of observers and if you've got a paddock full of folks who know their stuff which we do at any race meeting, that meeting of minds usually offers up an opinion that is almost certainly going to be spot on. If when building a bike you come to a situation where you may have doubts as to the legality of the modification, use the rulebook as a guide but  always seek a second, third or fourth opinion. You'll eventually find what you need to know.

To my knowledge the above two cases are the only ones in our sports history to need such an intense examination of the case. 99.99% of the rest have been settled by common sense and good knowledge

[Hoony]

that was a interesting read firko, i had no idea this sort of protest could go that far in the legal sense.

any chance of posting a pic of both those bikes involved to relate to the story ?

[FDR]

Bahnsy, You represent Viper which run  pre 78,80,85,90 & modern classes.

There is no Evo class, why would you bring up this debate when viper have no
intention of adding an evo class.

Viper force 1980 and later model evo class bikes to run pre 85.

First 2007 Viper newsletter reads Evo class dropped for 2007, (reason given it only will
affect one rider) who just happens to own a 81 490 Maico.

If Viper moved to Evo it would be huge and would encourage those forgotten models
out racing, just like the rule makers intented.

Now you know whats pissed me off

[firko]

Hoony....I've just gone through my computer photo files and can't find a a shot of either bike. I know I've got shots on transparencies but it's too much of a hassle to scan them. Maybe Maico31 or another Queenslander will have a shot of Verns gorgeous Cheney and perhaps someone took a photo of Frank Veradis BSA at the Coffs Harbour Nats or maybe a West Aussie may be able to help. I did a huge five page colour spread for Dirt Action on Verns bike and the case back in the June '98 issue .

[2 shocks]

Well said Pigmy, Find it very strange that Bahnsy re Viper, dropped the Evolution Class for 07 without any consultation to its Members, and now opens up this thread ?