What bikes are eligible for what classes

[JohnnyO]

I would love to own a CR480 engined 1980 CR250 Twinshock like the Farleigh Castle bikes but I'd never build one because I know it would be protested straight up.

[Nathan S]

Nathan an Evo bike has to consist of parts from an Evo legal bike, cr500 and rm500 motors are not legal because the bikes they came from are not Evo legal bikes. Simple isn't it?
Just like YZ465 forks are legal on any bike in the Evo class but CR480 forks are not..

Yep. But building a special, and entering it as a special eliminates all that.

[firko]

Yep. But building a special, and entering it as a special eliminates all that. 

........I'll bite just this one time.....I think you'd better explain this for us please Nathan, and please don't spare the details .

[oldfart]

Nathan ..... Evo in clause 18.5.6.1 - 18.5.6.2 and 18.5.6.3 shoot you down in flames big time.
Have another read .... it's simple and easy to follow. 

[Nathan S]

Let's say that I build my KTM-based abomination bike, as described above. If I call it a 1984 bike, I'm lying and it would be fair to accuse me of converting later model parts.
But if I tell the truth (that its a 2013 model), then the problem of "converting later parts" disappears, as does any reference to "period" (it's period is now).

The Evo regs do not specify any dates, so there's no problem in admitting it is a 2013 model.

By calling it a special ("Sex Max" rather than "KTM"), you can side-step all the stuff about "OEM" and "remain externally unchanged" in the rules. (Sorry Stew, you missed!)

That's the guts of it, and it applies equally to CR480RZs and twin shock RM500s.

Less important stuff includes:
"This is an OEM bike, available to anyone who is happy to pay the $29,990 retail price";
Evo come AFTER Pre-90 in 18.2.2 suggests that the class is intended to permit newer bikes than pre-90.

To be perfectly clear: I don't want to do this. It's against the intent of the class. I'm pointing out that the rules allow it - along with the questionable CR480RZs and the awful twin shock RM500s.
Shoot the messenger all you want, but the real answer is to fix the rules.

[mustanggrahame]

Wouldn't it be the case that no part from the hyperthetical KTM bike is from an Evo bike therefore none of it is compliant? Otherwise why is the horizontal lug 43mm fork off an L model Yamaha  problem on an Evo bike? I know the rules stipulate no cutoff date and somebody could race a 1999 DT175 (or whatever year had the last drum brake).
I like reading your arguments Nathan.
Cheers, Grahame

[Nathan S]

Wouldn't it be the case that no part from the hyperthetical KTM bike is from an Evo bike therefore none of it is compliant? Otherwise why is the horizontal lug 43mm fork off an L model Yamaha  problem on an Evo bike? I know the rules stipulate no cutoff date and somebody could race a 1999 DT175 (or whatever year had the last drum brake).
I like reading your arguments Nathan.
Cheers, Grahame

The hypothetical bike is NOT a KTM - it's a SexMax, and the SexMax was built in my shed to be an Evo bike. Yeah, I've used some KTM parts in the build, but it is still a SexMax and not a KTM. Just like a Husaberg TE250 isn't a KTM, or a Penda isn't a Honda (or a KTM), etc.

The Yamaha front brake thing is part of my thinking - although its something that should be allowed (no performance gain, inclusive rather than exclusive, etc).

[mustanggrahame]

BUT, if you used any of the KTM, which is obviously not an Evo compliant bike, then neither is the Sexmax.
Cheers.

[Rookie#1]

Wouldn't it be the case that no part from the hyperthetical KTM bike is from an Evo bike therefore none of it is compliant? Otherwise why is the horizontal lug 43mm fork off an L model Yamaha  problem on an Evo bike? I know the rules stipulate no cutoff date and somebody could race a 1999 DT175 (or whatever year had the last drum brake).
I like reading your arguments Nathan.
Cheers, Grahame

The hypothetical bike is NOT a KTM - it's a SexMax, and the SexMax was built in my shed to be an Evo bike. Yeah, I've used some KTM parts in the build, but it is still a SexMax and not a KTM. Just like a Husaberg TE250 isn't a KTM, or a Penda isn't a Honda (or a KTM), etc.

The Yamaha front brake thing is part of my thinking - although its something that should be allowed (no performance gain, inclusive rather than exclusive, etc).

The more times i read it the more I kinda want one of these SexMax's!!! I'm firming up just thinking about it!! 

[GMC]

Is anyone out there brave enough to argue this point with Nathan?

Nathan the great debater once again takes on all comers in the ring.
He has beaten off many a competitor in previous engagements and now is trying to prove himself yet again in another mass debate.
Many have floundered in the past under Nathan’s persistent trademark sleeper hold and now Firko wavers under the constant pounding but he refuses to say die and in a last gasp he reaches to the ropes and GMC gets a tag.
The spectators look on in anticipation, half of them shout out “hit him over the head when the Referee isn’t looking”
The other half are asleep, so powerful is Nathans sleeper hold.
GMC resists the incredible urge and tries to fight fair, he puts the chair back down even though his manager is still distracting the Ref.
Will GMC be able to have any impact?
The round continues…



Do you have any proof that your Sexmax existed and that it was originally equipped with the parts that are on it?
Brochures, sales receipts etc


Here you go Nathan, you can keep this going by arguing the definition of ‘original equipment manufacture’

18.5.6.1 Bikes will be OEM (original equipment manufacture).
18.5.6.2 Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed.
18.5.6.3 All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured:
a) No linkage suspension,
b) No disk brakes,
c) air cooled motors.

[Rookie#1]

Is anyone out there brave enough to argue this point with Nathan?

Nathan the great debater once again takes on all comers in the ring.
He has beaten off many a competitor in previous engagements and now is trying to prove himself yet again in another mass debate.
Many have floundered in the past under Nathan’s persistent trademark sleeper hold and now Firko wavers under the constant pounding but he refuses to say die and in a last gasp he reaches to the ropes and GMC gets a tag.
The spectators look on in anticipation, half of them shout out “hit him over the head when the Referee isn’t looking”
The other half are asleep, so powerful is Nathans sleeper hold.
GMC resists the incredible urge and tries to fight fair, he puts the chair back down even though his manager is still distracting the Ref.
Will GMC be able to have any impact?
The round continues…



Do you have any proof that your Sexmax existed and that it was originally equipped with the parts that are on it?
Brochures, sales receipts etc


Here you go Nathan, you can keep this going by arguing the definition of ‘original equipment manufacture’

18.5.6.1 Bikes will be OEM (original equipment manufacture).
18.5.6.2 Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed.
18.5.6.3 All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured:
a) No linkage suspension,
b) No disk brakes,
c) air cooled motors.

I gotta say that wording makes Nathan's argument look pretty credible, I think the thing folks seem to miss with Nathan is his arguments are rarely his own opinions, more just highlighting a particular point of view/interpretation exist!! When we form the VMX/VINDURO political party I'm sure Nathan's will be elected leader by way of no contest!! Love ya work

[Nathan S]

Is anyone out there brave enough to argue this point with Nathan?

Nathan the great debater once again takes on all comers in the ring.
He has beaten off many a competitor in previous engagements and now is trying to prove himself yet again in another mass debate.
Many have floundered in the past under Nathan’s persistent trademark sleeper hold and now Firko wavers under the constant pounding but he refuses to say die and in a last gasp he reaches to the ropes and GMC gets a tag.
The spectators look on in anticipation, half of them shout out “hit him over the head when the Referee isn’t looking”
The other half are asleep, so powerful is Nathans sleeper hold.
GMC resists the incredible urge and tries to fight fair, he puts the chair back down even though his manager is still distracting the Ref.
Will GMC be able to have any impact?
The round continues…



Do you have any proof that your Sexmax existed and that it was originally equipped with the parts that are on it?
Brochures, sales receipts etc


Here you go Nathan, you can keep this going by arguing the definition of ‘original equipment manufacture’

18.5.6.1 Bikes will be OEM (original equipment manufacture).
18.5.6.2 Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed.
18.5.6.3 All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured:
a) No linkage suspension,
b) No disk brakes,
c) air cooled motors.

If the SexMax is built, then it exists and that's all that matters. The Evo rules don't demand that it existed in 1980, 1984, 1989 or any other year: as written, the Evo class is NOT a historic class. It is a class that demands some superseded technical features, but nothing more.

And as I said, they are commercially available for a mere $29,990. 50% up front, and I'll build as many as you want. (Not that "commercially available" is in the CMX rules, but hey, I'm a nice guy and the SexMax is a great bike).

The OEM of the bike is SexMax - I've just used some KTM parts, in exactly the same way KTM just used some WP, Michelin and Keihin parts when they made their 300EXC (also consider Alrons, "Yamaha" HL500s, Metisses, CCMs, etc. [Or HSVs, the Proton Evo6s, etc]).
The lack of definition of OEM means that once I claim to be the manufacturer, all bets are off - the SexMax300 isn't in the KTM catalogue.

[Tony T]

I kinda like it......... 

[Nathan S]

BUT, if you used any of the KTM, which is obviously not an Evo compliant bike, then neither is the Sexmax.
Cheers.

The rule says "later parts", not "parts from a non-Evo bike".

[Nathan S]

I kinda like it......... 

Fark! Some bastard's already built one!
Dunno why they put an extra shock on it, though?