What bikes are eligible for what classes

[firko]

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

Why not ride it in pre 85?

[JohnnyO]

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

What makes you think 76 CR parts and 9 inches of suspension on a XL isn't legal for pre 78?
As Firko said ride your RC relica in pre 85.. Problems solvered!

[FourstrokeForever]

I did give some consideration to riding it in pre85, though it hardly seems fair. How disgusting would an RZ look with a disc brake on it?
Apart from that, I have a CR250RE waiting for some love as well. We'll see what happens when we closer to the Post Classics.

I don't actually think there is anything illegal about the XL Johnny. I did my best to keep it within the bounds of pre78 rules. If a ruling about changing body work comes into play then there could be ambiguities...

It also has some ultra rare factory kyb forks that have attracted some attention even at club level, even though they are 9" travel and with a 76 CR front hub. Blokes have tried to argue with me that they are 79 CR forks when they are nothing like them. The stanchions look similar with the step down bit between the triples but the axle pinch bolt area is totally different to any other make of fork I have in the shed. I removed them from a IT250H resto I did a few years back when I realised they weren't the correct fork. The only place I have seen a picture of the fork is in an article (on here somewhere by GMC) about the SP370 Hallam Suzuki that also actually states what the forks are. If I take a copy of that article with me to the Nats then all should be sweet.
Its such a sweet bike to ride and has no problems keeping up with anything pre78. Well, apart from one guy on a 440 Maico when it's going....

Cheers

[IT400C]

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.

I know I'm going to regret even commenting on this, but the mass-debating going on here is annoying the crap out of me.

If you built the SexMax Nathan, and marketed it, you would still not be the Manufacturer.  KTM would still be the Manufacturer, and you would be classed as no more than an aftermarket modifier of the vehicle.

If you tried to call yourself the manufacturer of the vehicle, KTM would sue so fast, you wouldn't even have time to front up to even one event....

[Nathan S]

Nonsense, on so many levels that I can't even believe you said it.

It's irrelevant anyhow - if it makes you happier, imagine I employed GMC to build me a new frame, got brand new closed chamber forks and shock directly from Showa/Kayaba/WP/Marzocchi. New plastics from UFO. New PWK from Keihin. Etc. Making it a thoroughly modern 2013 Evo bike all the way.

The KTM-based example was used to demonstrate how it would be easily possible, and isn't purely out in the realm of hypothetical.

[Ted]

Beta sell and market KTM's under the Beta banner

[09.0]

Nonsense, on so many levels that I can't even believe you said it.

I can say the same regarding you using a sexmax as a basis for your arguement, yet....

Beta sell and market KTM's under the Beta banner

For free? I think not. I'm sure they didn't buy a heap and just rebrand either.

[tony27]

Beta sell and market KTM's under the Beta banner

Not quite, the Beta enduro bikes from a few years ago used a KTM motor & the rest of the bike was there own.
Beta builds the small KTM 2stroke mx bikes

[Tim754]

Summary.
Nathans hypothetical questions have of now resulted in 16 pages.    Normal
There have been many diversions from the debate.                            Normal
Some have been enlightening, some have been rubbish.                         Normal
The quality posts and the dribbling shit will continue with no real sensible outcome .  Very normal.
  Back to it now, but somewhere along the line ask yourself "are some of these diatribes maybe putting others off joining or continuing in our pastime?"

Have a good day. Tim754

 

[Nathan S]

Noting Tim's point...

Now we're talking about licencing agreements and marketing?
Relevance?
But apparently it's Nathan who loves to argue over everything?

[bigtoe]

hi, the rule book state's in rule 18.5.4.1 "Acceptable for the pre 75 class are machine's and components built up to and including 1974" , so why are modern electronic ignition systems , special valves in forks allowed as these "components" were not around in 74 .

[Ted]

Out of sight Out of mind

[GMC]

hi, the rule book state's in rule 18.5.4.1 "Acceptable for the pre 75 class are machine's and components built up to and including 1974" , so why are modern electronic ignition systems , special valves in forks allowed as these "components" were not around in 74 .

The short answer is internal modifications are acceptable.
You can improve your bike but it should still look externally the same.

But guys really, you need to stop this before more threats of self harm with forks starts happening…
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health-fitness/canberra-man-lodges-fork-in-penis/story-fneuzlbd-1226699880200

[Tim754]

Good questions Mr Toe , ignitions of any era have been allowed in the rules for all forms of classic and vintage racing in Australia for basically ever. You can use what you like provided it does not change the external looks of the machine from original . Old magneto and later points systems just cannot cut it, leading to many bikes dieing whilst competing on race circuits with then obvious safety issues. Not to mention not being able to find anyone that builds,sells or even can carry out repairs the OEM stuff . Sensible approach that the great percentage of historic racers strangely agree with . 

Modern internal suspension upgrades.....Hmmm bucket of rotting fish guts sort of deal....

[Nathan S]

hi, the rule book state's in rule 18.5.4.1 "Acceptable for the pre 75 class are machine's and components built up to and including 1974" , so why are modern electronic ignition systems , special valves in forks allowed as these "components" were not around in 74 .

Until recently, Ignitions were specifically mentioned as something that was free - and had been back to the very early days.

There's also the issue of enforcing it - it is much more time consuming to start pulling bikes apart, and also much more difficult to prove what internals should look like (compared to external parts).