New Rule Book

[211kawasaki]

Hi Dave. All those questions were specifically about what OEM means in the Evo rules.
http://ozvmx.com/community/index.php?action=printpage;topic=1350.0

It means that it left the factory as a twin shock, air cooled not linkage machine. If it fits that then its 100% OK.

[Nathan S]

Reproduction frames are no good for pre-75 and newer, right?

Was this intended? I'd be pretty unhappy if I was a frame manufacturer.

[Iain Cameron]

Thank you Fatboy , job well done . Iain

[cheapracer]

I know that. But what does it mean for us?
Does it mean that I cannot stick a Honda motor in a Yamaha and call it a Boddy Special?

Heres the deal Mate, close your eyes and imagine you're in 1974 - now look around at what you can buy (in 1974 remember) and do what you like with those bits.

Heres a good example, when John Kemp won the 125 title in 2000 at Cherrabah, his CR125 had a 1974 barrel modified by hand with an additional boost port to 1974 Honda (or Mugen) works spec rather than simply drop a 1975 barrel on which came with the same boost port (as other did). John simply modded his bike as if it was 1974 understanding that 1975 parts didn't exist ... a crucial and extremely simple point.

[mboddy]

It means that it left the factory as a twin shock, air cooled not linkage machine. If it fits that then its 100% OK.

Great. Thanks Dave. Let's say that in the rules then.

[211kawasaki]

I know that. But what does it mean for us?
Does it mean that I cannot stick a Honda motor in a Yamaha and call it a Boddy Special?

Heres the deal Mate, close your eyes and imagine you're in 1974 - now look around at what you can buy (in 1974 remember) and do what you like with those bits.

Heres a good example, when John Kemp won the 125 title in 2000 at Cherrabah, his CR125 had a 1974 barrel modified by hand with an additional boost port to 1974 Honda (or Mugen) works spec rather than simply drop a 1975 barrel on which came with the same boost port (as other did). John simply modded his bike as if it was 1974 understanding that 1975 parts didn't exist ... a crucial and extremely simple point.

Mark, thats not 100% correct these days as the 75 CR125 is considered an acceptable follow on , i will comment further - look to next post

[211kawasaki]

Can I say that the vast amount of feedback off line to the rule amentments has been 100% positive. What we have with these new rules is effectivly no change to the way the rules were before just a clearer way of stating what they are.

The intent here is to encourage and foster riders in the sport and there has been no added restriction to any class of the sport in fact quite the reverse. There will always be a tweek here or there that can be made but in the main what we need to do is decide what we have is acceptable and apart from a small tweek here and there give the riders confidence that the framework will not alter.

To be frank what the Commission wants to encourage is guys building bikes, if you want to make a replica of a RH250 for example go right ahead - its acceptable under the rules, was before and is now.

At CD8 will be able to answer any questions or concerns on any part of the amendments and can assure you all that everything will be considered by the Commission.

211

 

[micks]

"encourage and foster riders into the sport" well why are you dropping out the juniors class?
cmx283 "the split" is it colin metcher proposal or the commission? shouldn`t colin have put in the proposed action as it is his recommendation.
the split is at pre 78 but with the introduction of the pre 90 class so if my club was to vote on cmx283 the split they would be voting cmx284 on bring in the pre 90 class that`s how i would read in to it.
the blame for the fuel rule should not be pointed at mnsw as the commission has time to refined it and has not!

[cheapracer]

To be frank ..

I thought you were Dave?

[211kawasaki]

"encourage and foster riders into the sport" well why are you dropping out the juniors class?
cmx283 "the split" is it colin metcher proposal or the commission? shouldn`t colin have put in the proposed action as it is his recommendation.
the split is at pre 78 but with the introduction of the pre 90 class so if my club was to vote on cmx283 the split they would be voting cmx284 on bring in the pre 90 class that`s how i would read in to it.
the blame for the fuel rule should not be pointed at mnsw as the commission has time to refined it and has not!

Lets get this absolutly straight and to do so allow me to give you a few grabs from the actual minutes from MNSW
"The committee believes that the use of leaded fuel is not warranted" "The inclusion of E10 and E85 fuel should be embraced as the future of fuel"
I bet not one single person in NSW racing the VMX bike is using E10 let alone E85
Can I also say that there were threats to protest all bikes not using Methanol at the Nats of that year.
MNSW demanded - and suggested we needed to be word perfect in doing so.
Facts only everyone; now where is that fuel tester for the scruitineer...............

[fatboyracing]

We as the commission DO NOT make the rules you do through proposals sent to your SCBs or Clubs ,proposals even sent directly to the MA are considered. I personally take offence to people who say that the commission makes the rules without any consideration from any other person or body Dave,Rod and Myself dont even talk about something if there is not a proposal in writing on the table. Everyone has had plenty of time to put suggestions and proposals forward before our one meeting a year so please stop moaning about what the commission has or hasnt done and send in your comments /suggestions to Ross at MA before July. I think we have done a great job this year making the rules more simple and easy to understand.

Shane Fraser
Fatboy Racing

[SAABCOMBI]

Well done to the  commission for making it clearer for those riders and newcomers to understand vmx rules, it shows that the Commision members are listening to the competitors, and its up to the riders now to understand the changers and there should be know problems with  the future, and this vintage movement can move on and grow.

[micks]

you are right 211kawasaki not one single person is using e85(ron 105) as it is illegal too.

sorry fatboyracing if i have upset you with my comments about cmx283 the split. i wasn`t implying that the commission is making the rule change it`s just the way it reads to me.
under the title recommended/proposed action it is written that the "commission recommends the split at the 78 era" when we all know that this is colin metchers baby and the credit should go to him.

if my club votes yes to cmx 283 "the split" would it be voting yes to cmx 284 introduction pre 90? 

[GD66]

i wasn`t implying that the commission is making the rule change it`s just the way it reads to me.
under the title recommended/proposed action it is written that the "commission recommends the split at the 78 era" when we all know that this is colin metchers baby and the credit should go to him.

If you read CMX 283 it clearly outlines "Issue : The Split.     Raised by : Colin Metcher .   Recommended/Proposed Action : Commission recommends split at the pre-'78 era"

Nobody is trivialising Col's foresight or efforts in this matter, including MA

[cheapracer]

We as the commission DO NOT make the rules you do through proposals sent to your SCBs or Clubs ,

Excuse if I'm asking the wrong person Shane, how did the unleaded fuel thing come about - I can't imagine anyone voting for it at club level?