Noel: Fernando said I can't race the postie! :o

[Nathan S]

My take on this is we race VINTAGE MX. The whole carry on thing was brought in to cope with a couple of cases where a bike that was just like the previous years model was ineligible because of the year cutoff.

But look, arguing the toss about how far carry ons go is silly. We buy, restore and occasionally race dirtbikes that were made donkeys years ago. We are trying to celebrate, venerate and relive a particular time. The rules are aimed at supporting that.

So, any bike that is made in 2003 and MARKETED as a 2003 model is a 2003 model, it is NOT a vintage bike and it is not a carryover. End of story.

Trying to suggest that a 2003 model carried in a mainstream manufacturer's catalogue as a 2003 model is somehow the same as a replica frame into which a real live honest to goodness 1978 engine is placed is downright nonsensical.

I have to agree with the others on here. If there is a thing called Vintage MX and its purpose is to encourage people to race 30 year old dirtbikes, then why the heck would you buy a 2003 model and go try to race it?

C'mon Graeme... Getting away from the CT110 specific discussion, if a 2003 model is the "same" as the 1984 or 1977 or 1974 or 1969 bike, then it MUST be a carry-over model.
Previously we've had long and protracted arguments about how pre-85 and/or pre-90 is Bad because it's not re-creating an appropriate era. But now the argument is that newly manufactured bikes that accurately reflect an appropriate era are not OK simply because they haven't spent X-years on the planet?

Like I said, the argument is emotive and irrational. Fair enough if you don't like the idea of bikes being able to be carry-over models for 20 years, but at least take the step back and work out why you don't like it, and why you think its a problem.

Is a GMC HL500 frame with a late model SR400/500 engine, new fibreglass seat base, new Franks triple clamps, a new plastic replica 125C tank, and new everything else OK for VMX? If so, why?
What about Jiri Starec's new CZs?

There seems to be a common theme (in this thread and others), that most of us have a 'feeling' about what constitutes a legitimate VMX bike - and the core of that feeling is pretty universal.
But while that feeling is not spelled out in the rules, we can only go on what the rules actually say - and the rules say that a carry-over bike is a carry-over bike, regardless of whether it was made 2, 10 or 35 years ago.

If, as Tim has pointed out, a bike isn't a legitimate carry over model despite superficial appearances, then I wouldn't want it to be made legal for any particular VMX class, but that's not the point I'm trying to make.

[firko]

I think a clue to why the CT110 is being "demonised" here is that is not a VMX bike. It has no place on a motocross track for so many reasons. You assume that a 2003 bike is an identical flow on from the 1980 model so therefore it should be allowed. Crapola! There are many changes but they are all red I suppose so let's turn a blind eye and no one will notice.
How do you come to the assumption that "hardly anyone even knew they (HL) existed until a few years ago" Nathan? Because you didn't hear of it you shouldn't assume that others shared that lack of knowledge. My motorcycle social circle were well aware of their existence as was anyone who has the slightest sense of MX history. The HL was an extremely revolutionary and trick bike in its day, won one GP and placed in others in its only serious racing season and would have won a lot more if Yamaha didn't withdraw development funding in favour of the two stroke program, which is the reason they only sold 400 units. It was the first 4 stroke to seriously challenge the 2 strokes in 20 years. "Virtually nothing" significant impact you say. I say "you're forking kidding". Check your facts Nathan. Even mentioning a CT110 in the same sentence as an HL Yamaha is ludicrous, let alone championing them as as worthy a VMX bike. I'll respect anyones opinion on what should be eligible or not eligible but when a flawed and judgmental argument is thrown into the mix to justify a dodgy submission, I arc up big time. I'll say it again......... A 2003 Honda CT110 has no place in Vintage Motocross..

[Nathan S]

You assume that a 2003 bike is an identical flow on from the 1980 model so therefore it should be allowed. Crapola! There are many changes but they are all red I suppose so let's turn a blind eye and no one will notice.

And there's that emotion again. Go back and re-read my previous posts, and you'll see that I've repeatedly made the point that I'm not talking specifically about any bike, particularly not CT110s - so I have no idea where you got that idea from.
 

How do you come to the assumption that "hardly anyone even knew they (HL) existed until a few years ago" Nathan? Because you didn't hear of it you shouldn't assume that others shared that lack of knowledge. My motorcycle social circle were well aware of their existence as was anyone who has the slightest sense of MX history.

C'mon... Hardly a solid argument that they were part of the mainstream knowledge... I'll ignore the condescending tone, and point to the minimal media coverage both in their day and in the earlier VMX days (that's VMX the sport, not the magazine). Bikes that really mattered, the ones that really made a difference, were referenced all over the joint (and often for years after).
 

The HL was an extremely revolutionary and trick bike in its day, won one GP and placed in others in its only serious racing season and would have won a lot more if Yamaha didn't withdraw development funding in favour of the two stroke program, which is the reason they only sold 400 units. It was the first 4 stroke to seriously challenge the 2 strokes in 20 years.

Yes, yes, and yes (erm, this is not meant to sound facetious or patronising, I agree with all quoted points). But the simple fact is that Yamaha withdrew the funding and it went nowhere, with virtually no bikes sold.
So my point is valid: Despite their good points, ultimately they're a historical curiosity, and nothing more. They live on the same rung of the historical ladder as the Noguchi AT1MX and the Ribi RC125: They did not re-define the direction of dirt biking, or even just it's MX offspring. Nor did they prove to be pivotal in  history of its maker.

The main thrust of my point is that the direction the rules take, and the application of rules, is often emotionally charged and therefore irrational.
If we want the rules to reflect that almost universal feeling about what makes a legitimate VMX bike, then fine. But we also have to accept that everyone will have differing opinions at the edges.
And while the rules are written as they are, then the written rule takes precedent over vague, undefined and possibly self-contradictory emotion.

[BETRIC]

HONDA MADE THE CT90/110 AS A FARM BIKE WITH A DUEL RANGE GEAR BOX THAT WAS AVALIBLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, THE CT110 POSTIE BIKE IS MADE FOR AUST POST ONLY A SPECIAL ORDER ONLY SO YOU CAN NOT BUY NEW FROM HONDA, WHEN WERE POSTIE BIKES FIRST MADE MID 80's???, I HAVE AN 87 MODEL, SO WOULD THAT MEAN THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO RACE A EARLY MODEL CT90/110 WITH THE DUEL RANGE BOX INSTALLED TO BE LEGAL

[All Things 414]

You go away for one weekend and it all goes off! . I wish there had been more postie bike/CT's around when I was racing years ago. My dreams of world domination could have materialized! I think someone's taking the piss here.......

[husky61]

Nathan

Give it up will ya.

Not only did your reply sound facetious and patronising but also down right condescending.

Yeh Yeh , my couple of posts were not much better , but there is a programe and people should stick to it , so lets get with the programe .
It , the 2003 model postie bike is  not a follow on model and never will be.

As Mark said , just because you were not aware of the HL and the HL programe , others were and they performed very very well when Yamaha were supporting the programe.

If people wish to use the trusting old postie in VMX , power to them for having a shot (Go Noel)  , but having said that it needs to be a year model that meets the requirements

[Hoony]

i don't know why you guys get wound up so much, as 414 said its a piss take and a joke thread.
 
"Nuff Said" 

[YSS]

No Hoony , I thought it was joke first . But thats one month to soon. (1.April)
I think this will test the system.

[All Things 414]

Testing some peoples medication I think.......

[firko]

Nathan...Your blinkered view of motocross history astounds me. Now we find you are comparing two bikes that didn't exist as showroom releases (Noguchi and Ribi) with a legitimate production model. If you had read any of the bountiful selection of articles available to you on the HL history you'd know that the bike was indeed an extremely successful bike that garnered an amazing amount  publicity at the time. The minimal media coverage in the early days of VMX (the sport) may have had something to do with the small fact that VMX in those days was purely a pre 75 division. The HL is a pre 78 or Evo class bike so of course it wasn't mentioned much back then. 

Please accept the FACT Nathan that a 2003 Postie bike is not a flow on from a legitimately legal pre 1986 model. As Betric points out so accurately, the CT110 is not available to the public and is vastly different to the production Civvy model. It's not a flow on and it's not bloody legal.

I don't understand your paranoid fixation with defining the rules. They are not perfect and never will be but they have served us well for 20 years. To pedantically scour them looking for loopholes and mistakes rather than using them to guide Your race bike choice is not productive. Your reading efforts would be better spent learning a bit about the history of our sport and its bikes to prevent any further public displays of ignorance.



 

[firko]

I have to agree that this thread probably did start as a piss take as I also said in an earlier post. However when Nathan starts twisting the history of our sport to suit his own unfathomable philosophy I can't let it go without comment.

[YSS]

No Firko , this bloke definitely was serios when he rang Fernando. I thought it was a joke too , thats why I put up the pic of my fuel injected 125 Honda follow on model .

[Nathan S]

As I cannot let it go when you mis-represent what I've said.

I don't go looking for the holes in the rules - they come and slap us in the face every couple of months. But the stoic refusal to accept that the rules are anything but perfect, offends my fundamental sense of right and wrong.

Look at it the other way: If we were to revamp the way the rules are written, so that anyone with basic reading and comprehension skills could pick up the manual and know what was allowed and what was prohibited, would the sky fall in?
Why is it better that people have to get onto these forums and ask questions, to get 30 different points of view, and then still have to guess whether their bike will be legal?

And I repeat: Now that we know the later CT110s have 5-speed gearboxes rather than dual-range 4-speeders, the discussion about this particular bike is dead in the water.

[firko]

I am unaware of the situations that "slap us in the face every couple of months". I'm sure we'd all like to know what the problem bikes are. To enlighten us can you list the problem bikes and why they are anomalies please Nathan?

How do you think the rulebook can be inmproved Nathan? You've spent a lot of time over the last year or so sprouting your worries on our imperfect eligibility criteria so using the ample space available on this forum, give us a hint on your for a better rulebook. I'm the first to admit that there are some eligibility issues that need to be addressed so your suggestions might just be the catalyst for a new, more democratic eligibility criteria.
This isn't a sarcastic pisstake. I'm quite serious about hearing Nathans ideas on improving the breed.

[All Things 414]

Come to mention it, my '08 Harobishi Banzai looks very Similar to Hakan Andersons '77 Works 360. I'm sure the Chinese were having a good look at motocross in those days and as mine doesn't have a compliance plate (the bike may be stolen, I did pick it up at Trash & Treasure), I reckon it could be a flow on from the '82 Hirochemo Crumple, a little known 65cc bike made popular by Phach Kit when he placed 85th in the 1982 World Overlocking Championships held in...........