What bikes are eligible for what classes

[Nathan S]

There is a girl in Qld racing a DT175 monoshock, I think it's a 90's model? That will cause problems with a year cut off

Noted.

[firko]

Firko don't forget about the Fox 44mm conventional forks.
I don't know that you need to include the tank, bodywork line. There's a few guys using J model Yamaha tank/seat combos on their H model Evo bikes and I don see a problem with that.

OK, then, make the cutoff 44mm. The "major components" definition would prevent non Evo eligible forks anyway. Like in all other divisions of the sport, you'd be required to show proof of period availability (dated magazine articles, ads and catalogues etc).

I believe the bodywork line should remain to try and prevent owners from changing the bikes "period" appearance. I've seen a couple of evo and pre 85 bikes with CR450F/YZ450F style mudguards and they detracted from the whole period feel of the bikes. The example you quote is exactly what I think needs to be prevented. The J model safety seat and tank changes the total look of the H model, your eye is naturally drawn to the distinctive red seat subliminally setting up a doubt as to what model you're looking at. I can understand why owners do it but if the rules state categorically that they can't fit later bodywork, the period integrity of the H model and similar examples are kept intact...the difference line is no longer blurred.

[head]

What about safety seat kits for YZ H models using standard tank.

[JohnnyO]

What about safety seat kits for YZ H models using standard tank.

Thats fine as they were available in the day..

[JohnnyO]

Firko don't forget about the Fox 44mm conventional forks.
I don't know that you need to include the tank, bodywork line. There's a few guys using J model Yamaha tank/seat combos on their H model Evo bikes and I don see a problem with that.

OK, then, make the cutoff 44mm. The "major components" definition would prevent non Evo eligible forks anyway. Like in all other divisions of the sport, you'd be required to show proof of period availability (dated magazine articles, ads and catalogues etc).

I believe the bodywork line should remain to try and prevent owners from changing the bikes "period" appearance. I've seen a couple of evo and pre 85 bikes with CR450F/YZ450F style mudguards and they detracted from the whole period feel of the bikes. The example you quote is exactly what I think needs to be prevented. The J model safety seat and tank changes the total look of the H model, your eye is naturally drawn to the distinctive red seat hypothetically setting up a doubt as to what model you're looking at. I can understand why owners do it but if the rules state categorically that they can't fit later bodywork, the period integrity of the H model and similar examples are kept intact...the difference line is no longer blurred.

Fair enough.. I was just thinking some people are going to be pissed but that's life!

[firko]

Fair enough.. I was just thinking some people are going to be pissed but that's life!

As these 15 pages show, not everyone has the same opinions on Evo but once it's clear to all what's yay or nay , the sport can just get on with it. I agree with Nathan in the fact that the eligibility wording for Evo is in need of a tune up but I disagree that we have to spell everything out to the nth degree. My amendments and perhaps a couple more are all that I think are needed. The whole success of Evo is its simplicity so complicating the current one paragraph of rules with endless eligibility criteria would be damaging to the simple intent of the class. 

[JohnnyO]

Fair enough.. I was just thinking some people are going to be pissed but that's life!

As these 15 pages show, not everyone has the same opinions on Evo but once it's clear to all what's yay or nay , the sport can just get on with it. I agree with Nathan in the fact that the eligibility wording for Evo is in need of a tune up but I disagree that we have to spell everything out to the nth degree. My amendments and perhaps a couple more are all that I think are needed. The whole success of Evo is its simplicity so complicating the current one paragraph of rules with endless eligibility criteria would be damaging to the simple intent of the class.

I couldn't agree more, keep it simple. I love the class, it represents a great era in motocross..

[FourstrokeForever]

. Unfortunately, I missed the good days of VMX when the grids were full and everything was a bit more relaxed rule wise.

When was that exactly? The rules have always been enforced to the nth degree at National level meetings right back as far as 1992 when the rules were first formalised into MoMs. There is no good old "more relaxed" days. I do however agree that the grids were once much fuller, up to three time fuller with pre 75 bikes alone. Somehow a lot of mojo has been lost along the way.

Fair enough Mark. that was just my interpretation of what I have read about meetings from long ago. Point taken!

[FourstrokeForever]

There is no year cutoff that would work for Evo. The rules are fine as they are except for some poor wording. A day later I still think I've simplified the wording to the degree that it's all you really need.


A simple way of solving the problem would be to make a wording amendment to the Evo rules that could read "Conventional forks only, maximum diameter 43mm." The "All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured" line should be changed to " All major components must originate from or be manufactured for drum brake, air cooled non linkaged machines".
Major components are by definition:
*Engine and external aftermarket engine accessories.
*Frame, both OEM and aftermarket,
*Brake hubs and backing plates
*forks
*Tank, mudguards, seat and other bodywork.


 

This seems perfectly clear to me... Bugger! 43mm Honda forks are still out 

I don't want to over complicate the rules, but, could there also be a ruling that reads something like?:

Conventional type forks up to a maximum diameter of 44mm that were ORIGINALLY DESIGNED FOR DRUM BRAKES are eligible

I only ask this as I think it to be a ridiculous situation where I can mount 43mm OEM Yamaha forks onto my Honda but I can't mount 43mm OEM Honda forks because they came from a bike with a linkage rear suspension 

Again, I don't want to stir the pot and I will NOT argue my case over and over again. It's just a suggestion and I feel now may be the time to make my case while you guys are collectively working on "tidying up" the rules regarding Evolution bikes.

Cheers,
Mark

[PEZBerq]

TBM it sounds like you want the rule change because it doesnt suit your specific situation. A completely understandable reason ...... but hardly a vote winner in my electorate 

You present an argument to support your problem being the rules are "ridiculous" but your problem seems to me to be just that the proposed rules don't suit what you want to do. The rules are not actually the problem as I see it. Your plans are the problem as they are not within the proposed rules.

Many people have similar "problem" with suspension travel rules when their era specific OEM bike has more travel. Why do I have to restrict travel? - its ridiculous as back in the day....etc etc.

Sometimes trying to second guess the thinking behind the rules is an exercise in futility. Just build a bike that meets the rules

[JohnnyO]

There is no year cutoff that would work for Evo. The rules are fine as they are except for some poor wording. A day later I still think I've simplified the wording to the degree that it's all you really need.


A simple way of solving the problem would be to make a wording amendment to the Evo rules that could read "Conventional forks only, maximum diameter 43mm." The "All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured" line should be changed to " All major components must originate from or be manufactured for drum brake, air cooled non linkaged machines".
Major components are by definition:
*Engine and external aftermarket engine accessories.
*Frame, both OEM and aftermarket,
*Brake hubs and backing plates
*forks
*Tank, mudguards, seat and other bodywork.


 

This seems perfectly clear to me... Bugger! 43mm Honda forks are still out 

I don't want to over complicate the rules, but, could there also be a ruling that reads something like?:

Conventional type forks up to a maximum diameter of 44mm that were ORIGINALLY DESIGNED FOR DRUM BRAKES are eligible

I only ask this as I think it to be a ridiculous situation where I can mount 43mm OEM Yamaha forks onto my Honda but I can't mount 43mm OEM Honda forks because they came from a bike with a linkage rear suspension 

The other option is to do what they did back in the day and fit 38mm Simons or 44mm Fox forks.. You'll have a much cooler bike as well!

[firko]

This seems perfectly clear to me... Bugger! 43mm Honda forks are still out 

I don't want to over complicate the rules, but, could there also be a ruling that reads something like?:

Conventional type forks up to a maximum diameter of 44mm that were ORIGINALLY DESIGNED FOR DRUM BRAKES are eligible

I only ask this as I think it to be a ridiculous situation where I can mount 43mm OEM Yamaha forks onto my Honda but I can't mount 43mm OEM Honda forks because they came from a bike with a linkage rear suspension 

Again, I don't want to stir the pot and I will NOT argue my case over and over again. It's just a suggestion and I feel now may be the time to make my case while you guys are collectively working on "tidying up" the rules regarding Evolution bikes.

Mark, while I understand your frustration, there simply has to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere. The Yamaha forks are a lot better anyway which is weird seeing that they're both made by Showa.

[Davey Crocket]

The Yams forks are KYB Firko, I will have a genuine safety seat in my workshop in a few weeks on a 465H that I can take photo's/measurements off.

[FourstrokeForever]

Thanks guys. I don't have any issue with it at all. You guys have been involved in the movement for a hell of a lot longer than me so far be it for me to continue with my line of thinking on the "fork rule".
However, perhaps my wording could of been better and made to read less like it was all about me. There are plenty of Honda builders out there that I'm sure would rather use OEM Honda parts than mix and match.
It's really not that a big an issue to me personally. I just figured changing the ruling as I suggested may make the rule "crystal clear(er)"
As for my RC replica, I'll just use the bike for club days if there are no objections. As I previously stated, I like the RC look and I intend on keeping the bike the way it is. It cost me a small fortune!
If it doesn't get accepted at club level, well, I guess it will go back in the lounge room only to see the light of day at HBBB or the like and I might be able to fund another evolution build sometime. I have a pile of poo CR250RZ in the shed that requires a big injection of time and money.
In the short term, I'll just keep on with pre75 over 263 on my beeza and pre78... That's IF my XL410 passes scrutiny Afterall, All the body work on it was designed for a '76 CR and it now has 9" suspension travel....None of which an XL350 ever had 

Cheers,
Mark

[firko]

The Yams forks are KYB Firko, I will have a genuine safety seat in my workshop in a few weeks on a 465H that I can take photo's/measurements off.

Doh...Another pensioner medication moment . I originally thought they were Kayaba but I started doubting and finally convinced myself they were Showas, too bloody lazy to make the effort to go out to the shed and take a look at my IT465 forks.