What bikes are eligible for what classes

[Simo63]

I've been watching the eligibility debates go over and over and over for 25 years now. While some issues are simply resolved, far too many fester, sometimes indefinitely. They are the gangrene of our sport.
Think about how much damage is done every time someone is knocked back at scrutiny, or protested - I've met people who still harbour grudges from 15 years ago, FFS.
I've lost track of the number of people I've met who clearly have enthusiasm for old dirt bikes, but when I say "why don't you come along to...", they point-blank refuse to because of some eligibility dispute that happened in 1997...

A couple of things Nathan.  Firstly, like many, I respect your right to your opinion and I also respect the fact you do so quite vigourously.  I would never "Nathan bash" you or "anyone bash" for that matter however I have a point to make regarding the above section of your last chapter. 

Unfortunately I fell victim to my own stupidity last year when I was knocked back at the Nats for presenting a pre 75 TM250 that wasn't pre 75.  I did not know that it was a 75 frame until such time as the scrutineers told me so.  I should have known, iot's as simple as that. 

What happened around that event is now long gone and I do not wish to relive it now except to say that, as shattering as that was to me at the time, I have moved on.  I will enter the Nats this year (if they actually occur and I'm sure they will) but I will make damned sure the bikes I present are 110% eligible.  In other words I've built my bridge and get over it.

You need to tell those people still holding grudges from 1997 to do the same.  If they "clearly have enthusiasm" then it's not hard to find some building materials and build the damn bridge. Maybe the building materials could be in the form of a little more knowledge, some humbleness and an eligible bike 

[Simo63]

Oh
I forgot, sorry if I caused argy bargy with this topic but If I am going to look to increase the stable I wanted not to regret the purchase.
Thanks again

Wise man 

[Davey Crocket]

Nathan, how about you go through the MOM's, pick out all the wrong wording/era's and or changes needed by us (VMX), and only applicable to us, re-write it, show us, we can debate/change it or what ever, then submit it through the right channels and we can all be happy little vegemites?...go on....nike it!!!

[09.0]

For one, this lawyer / legality thought process really gets up my nose. There is enough of that wrecking our lives in many ways. Just to start with it affects mx in the worst way.
As has been said the rules work in the real world and for the third time I will ask you Nathan that if it is such a problem for you, take it up with M.A. I would not hazard a guess as to how many times you have raised this issue on here. I feel this sort of thing does way more damage than some idiot trying to pass off a later model bike off at a meeting, then gets pissed off because he's told to put it back on the trailer. Probably the best part of all this is that you know and abide by the rules already. This playing the devils advocate is wearing thin and think it is detrimental as its here forever for all to see.

[Ted]

Thanks Guys
I now have a pretty good idea of how to go forward
If I want to ride a big bore Honda is out in EVO so get a pre 85
The little 125 D model I have can go pre78 and evo if I want to and I can go YZ250H or 465H, which is the best way to have an EVO and pre 85 Bike short of 15K for a Maico.

It all makes sense now and I can't remeber who it was but the comment on how period / technology of time, makes alot more sense than reading the rule books. No big bore production Honda was made before rising rate linkages and Yamaha Monoshock is not a linkage. The KTM does not have a linkage but the current technology of the KTM rear reproduces (without the levers etc) a rising rate type of suspension so KTM is not eligible even with fins welded onto a newer Generation design 2 stroke. and there is the Rub that engine design is not period nor is the Frame so swapping forks and drums for disc's is moot.

Thanks again guys I am now hunting for a yz465G/H G is nicer looking from memory it had those lovely stickers like the E model. Anyone selling one?

What's your price range?

[Nathan S]

Firko, I'm not just talking about the Big Shitfights. I'm talking about the small shitfights, the quibbles and the uncertainty that do the damage.

People like certainty. They like being able to build a bike and KNOW it is legal. To be able to go to an event and KNOW there won't be an eligibility problem.
Look at him many "is this legal?" threads we get - collectively, we do our best to give clear answers and eliminate uncertainty, but (even when I'm not involved...) there's regularly ambiguous and/or conflicting answers.

If newbies (and often established competitors) regularly need to depend on other people to interpret the rules from them, then there's no question that the rules should be clearer. All of the "fill in the blanks" stuff about the intent of various rules that you have stored in your head (and Dave T's and Shane's and everyone else's heads) should be in the rules. Not word-for-word, but the intent.
Clear and unambiguous.

Tell me what the bad points of clear, unambiguous rules are...

The phrase "just build your bike to be legal" is a cop-out that assumes the builder knows about all of the gaps in what's published. It also assumes that people are mainly motivated by wanting to make their bikes faster (ie: gain an advantage, possibly cheating). In reality, most times it's because people have the questionable part readily available, or it's something they think is cool.

Look at the "Yamaha brake lug in Evo" question: The strictest interpretation of the rules says that it's not OK to use the horizontal lug brake and matching fork leg. But people will want to use the later part because its far easier to get hold of, and usually much cheaper.
It provides no performance gain and looks virtually identical, so what does anyone gain by prohibiting it?

Similarly, there are a number of people who argue that the 450/480 powered CR250RZs are legal Evo bikes. I recall a comment on these forums along the lines of "I think it's legal, so f$&k 'em, I'm going to take it and they can protest me"... Again, an example of ambiguity being a negative - regardless of whether you agree that those mods are Evo legal or not, the ambiguity allowed hostility to brew.
Same goes for Suzuki and Honda TLS front brakes on Evo bikes, or the CR-RB swing arms, or...

This shit needs to be shaken out, not ignored again and again.

I don't even care what the decision is anymore, there just needs to be a clear one. (Look at how the RM-B swingarm agro evaporated once a decision was made known)

[firko]

OK....If it's so important to you that the rulebook needs some drastic changes, rather than venting your spleen on here about it over and over....why don't you sit down at the computer and start rewriting the rules to a standard that you think will do them justice. I agree with you that there are some sections that need a touch up so seeing that it's so important to you, why not do it yourself? I sat down with a blank sheet of paper in 1988 and wrote the basic rules that are still the basis of what we use today. If you're as passionate as I was in 1988 it won't be as big a chore as it might at first seem. Unless somebody like you starts the ball rolling, nothing is ever going to change.

[Nathan S]

I've tried to get the ball rolling plenty of times, but when it comes to getting input on "what should the rules be?", I just get stonewalled.

[Noel]

  18

"AN OVERVIEW
Classic Motocross and Dirt Track applies to events Pre
60 Class up to and including the Pre 78 Class.

Post Classic Motocross and Dirt Track applies to
Evolution, pre 85 and the pre 90 classes.
 And is for motor bikes originally   designed and built
 up to and including 1989 models "

[Ted]

Noel, Your last sentence is not listed in the MoMS

" And is for motorbikes originally designed and built up to and including 1989 models"

I cannot find any reference to year of manufacture of EVO class. I stand to be corrected.

As silly as it sounds, the way it is worded Nathan would win his case hands down.

[supersenior 50]

The Evo rules are the simplest of all. Play it straight and fair and it's no problem

[Nathan S]

The Evo rules are the simplest of all. Play it straight and fair and it's no problem

Have you read the thread, Col?

[Nathan S]

I should also add that I suppressed my instinct to say something when I saw short-comings in the organisation and promotion of the PCMXNs from months out.
I'm not claiming that speaking up would have made the difference, but I do feel guilty and embarrassed for saying nothing and letting it all turn to crap. Like all forms of guilt, it is a powerful motivator.

All that is required for failure to triumph, is for normal people to say nothing.

[jimg1au]

just a few points i have found about evo.it has no date for it
1977 bultaco astro pre 78 eligible NOT ELIGIBLE for EVO factory std rear disk brake
pre75/78 flattrack bikes NOT ELIGIBLE for EVO
now here is the answer
take the rear wheel from another bike fit it and you are EVO legal but NOT OME.
i have found this out the hard way as now our club races are evo open so cant use my OME pre78 rear wheel.
if there were the same as other club days pre75- pre85 i could use my disc brakes.
so now all my dirt track bikes will have drums all round but my slider will have disc rear as there is no evo slider class pre75 or pre90
just my 2 cents from a non mx view
jim

[KTM47]

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.

I have come into this late so someone else may have already said this, I haven't got time to read the lot.  The rules do not need fixing. GCR 18.5.6.2. "Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed." End of argument. Also the Maicos sold by Maico Only in the UK have 83 Spider motors in them so they don't comply also. They would if the motor was 81 or 82 GS.

Also if anyone does want to buy a new Evo bike a Honda CT110 postie complies with the rules.

So please build a bike or bring one in from the UK I will be more than willing to protest it (and win).