What bikes are eligible for what classes

[JohnnyO]

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).

Yes we both know its been done before hey Kev.. Remember the 1980 CR250 with the 480 motor fitted that turned up to race at Echo Valley?

[Rookie#1]

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).

Yes we both know its been done before hey Kev.. Remember the 1980 CR250 with the 480 motor fitted that turned up to race at Echo Valley?

The only chink it the statement is that CT110 is now......believe it or not.........DISCONTINUED! :'( yup even the posties won't be using them in a few years.

[Nathan S]

People are still missing the point about "later equipment". Using this statement assumes that the starting point is c1981.

[evo550]

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 them.

There is a difference between the '82 horizontal lug and the '81 45 degree lug on the 43mm Yamaha forks, besides coming from a water cooled, linkage'd bike and that is they where also fitted with compression damping adjustment on the bottom of the fork that the "H" model wasn't...performance gain right there.
Do I hear a cartridge emulator argument coming on....

[KTM47]

Yes I know, John. I sent an email to Rick Doherty in the US the inventor of the Evo class. He responded very quickly and told me that a modified 480 was not an Evo bike. Modified bikes Hondas and Suzuki and even early on some Yamahas are legal in the Twin Shock series in the UK. I believe this class was invented by Bill Brown, it helped him sell a lot of Maicos. I have now scaned over the others posts I and now realise this is someone version of fun. Stir up some discussion and see how much response you can get.

Anyway please built your bike, but first make sure you are recognised as a bike manufacturer, design and build the bike from scratch. If you comply with this it could be recognised as eligible for Evo class. Also build it for the 500 class because no matter what you do it still won't be as good as the best 500 Motocrosser ever built, the mighty Maico 490.

I'm buying a postie bike next week for Evo 125 class, does anyone make an alloy swingarm and can I get Ohlins to fit.

Kevin

[KTM47]

The only chink it the statement is that CT110 is now......believe it or not.........DISCONTINUED! :'( yup even the posties won't be using them in a few years.
[/quote]

There you go Nathan there is a chance for you to become a bike manufacturer. Design and build a replacement for the postie bike. You can build it to comply to Evo rules, or maybe you could import some 2013 490 Maicos for the posties. Also if anyone thinks a CT110 isn't an off road bike, they spend most of their time off road on the footpaths.

Are there any more comedy posts I can get involved in?

[JohnnyO]

Are there any more comedy posts I can get involved in?

There are plenty Kev, just click on any of Nathan's posts...

[mustanggrahame]

I get that part of Nathan's argument. With respect to Evo there is no "later equipment". The wording in the MoMs maybe should say something about not using parts that originated from another era or class.
Grahame

[Rookie#1]

The only chink it the statement is that CT110 is now......believe it or not.........DISCONTINUED! :'( yup even the posties won't be using them in a few years.

There you go Nathan there is a chance for you to become a bike manufacturer. Design and build a replacement for the postie bike. You can build it to comply to Evo rules, or maybe you could import some 2013 490 Maicos for the posties. Also if anyone thinks a CT110 isn't an off road bike, they spend most of their time off road on the footpaths.

Are there any more comedy posts I can get involved in?
[/quote]


Here's what the "real deal" looks like

[JohnnyO]

Yes Grahame the wording is not perfect but most of us interpret the rules the way they were meant to be....

[Nathan S]

Anyway please built your bike, but first make sure you are recognised as a bike manufacturer, design and build the bike from scratch. If you comply with this it could be recognised as eligible for Evo class.

All that stuff about the "recognised manufacturer" is a figment of your imagination.
I've been talking about what the rules say, not what we think they say, or think they should say.

[KB171]

People are still missing the point about "later equipment". Using this statement assumes that the starting point is c1981.
 


What was the missing  bit again ?

[09.0]

Not once have you said you are going to do anything about it. I think it's because you are getting so much milage on here. It's nothing more than trolling. For the fifth time on this thread I will say to do something about it. You say you have tried before on here and no one wants anything to do with it. That in itself says a lot for others mind set. Still, you have the issue, you do something about it.
I would also hate it if the rules were changed in such a fashion you had to run it past a freaking lawyer to understand it. Now that would not inspire any new comers.

[JohnnyO]

I've been talking about what the rules say, not what we think they say, or think they should say.

We know what the rules say and we know what they should say, but we're not having any trouble understanding them. If it bothers you so much do something about getting it rewritten as Brad says, without ending with a 500 page rule book that is over complicated.
With 90+ Evo bikes entered at the Conondale classic the class is not suffering by rule book wording..

[Canam370]

People are still missing the point about "later equipment". Using this statement assumes that the starting point is c1981.
 


What was the missing  bit again ?

Absolutely perfect KB!