What bikes are eligible for what classes

[mainline]

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 .

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

Exactly what, pray tell, did you type into the google machine to find that gem of a news story? 

[IT400C]

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.

Ah Nathan, it must be truly wonderful to live in a fantasyland so utterly devoid of any semblance of reality..

What you're describing is a kit bike - you're building nothing but a frame to which you're bolting already existing non-Evo legal components.

Who's manufacturing your drum brake hubs for you?  Or are you going to use second hand components?

Shock directly from Showa/Kayaba/WP/Marzocchi.  You can do that already.  Or get a custom shock from one of the many existing purveyors of quality VMX shock absorbers around.

Brand new closed chamber forks directly from Showa/Kayaba/WP/Marzocchi.  I would imagine that if they've already been used on a production bike that isn't currently Evo legal, then you'll have a problem getting them through scrutineering.

Are you going to sign that licencing agreement with KTM/Honda/Yamaha to rebrand their motor to your SexMax brand?  If you rebrand the motor without the licencing agreement, they'll sue you out of existence. 

If you just remove the water jacket and add fins to a KTM/Honda/Yamaha motor?  It's not eligible as it's still just a modified non-Evo motor.

If you do sign a licencing agreement (for much money I would imagine), then unless you get them to design you a new motor from the ground up - it's just a copy of an existing non-Evo motor and again, stands little chance of passing the first scrutineering it's taken to. 

Not to mention the whole homologation issue - how many bikes need to be produced to be considered a production vehicle?  200 or so?

But apparently it's Nathan who loves to argue over everything?

Well it certainly does seem that way......   

[Nathan S]

1. Where is there a requirement for bikes to be homologated?
2. It wouldn't be copying KTM parts - every SexMax built would be a sale for KTM. Your argument is based on the scenario that I was making a KTM-copy and selling it as a KTM, which is entirely the opposite to what I've suggested.
3. KTM would be highly unlikely to chase anyone over one or two bikes, even if it was that reversed situation. There's a hell of a lot of Chinese-made "KTM" 50s being advertised apparently without fear.
4. You're still hung up on the assumption that a 2013 bike can't be Evo legal, despite at assumption being unsupported by the rules.
5. It's all an irrelevant distraction because you want to argue.

[firko]

Give it a rest Nathan....The Sexmax is dead. Kaput.

[PEZBerq]

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 .

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

Exactly what, pray tell, did you type into the google machine to find that gem of a news story? 

[/quote]


"Well fork me dead said foreskin Fred" ... was never closer to the mark  :'( Must have been searching for fork sag setting methods!

[Nathan S]

I've been trying to have it killed by the rules from the start.
Sadly, it lives - and irrelevant crap about homologation does nothing to change that.

[FourstrokeForever]

And I thought this thread was about helping some of us not so vmx savvy types figure out what can and what can't be done 
Dealing with "hypothetical" nonsense is just that.....NONSENSE 

[firko]

OK Nathan..I think we've tidied up the wording anomalies for Evo a few pages ago so what are you aiming for with this boring SexMax hypothetical? What wording would you like to see in MoMs to counter the SexMax? This has been going in circles for 17 pages and while others have pretty much solved the Evo eligibility criteria problems with a few simple upgrade proposals, you've continued on this lonely SexMax line of thought for reasons known only to yourself. Surely it's dawned on you that you're the only one that sees the SexMax thing as relevant to the argument? Most everyone else sees it as pedantic nonsense.

As Brad, Joan and myself (and others) have earlier suggested, it's now time to stop the irrelevant hypothetical bullshit and assemble a set if simple and usable Evo regs and submit them to MA via your club. By continuing to harp on about the stupid SexMax and calling for a year cutoff you're only complicating what should be a very simple set of rules. If you aren't ready to do something now...you'll never be ready.

[Simo63]

OK Nathan..I think we've tidied up the wording anomalies for Evo a few pages ago so what are you aiming for with this boring SexMax hypothetical? What wording would you like to see in MoMs to counter the SexMax? This has been going in circles for 17 pages and while others have pretty much solved the Evo eligibility criteria problems with a few simple upgrade proposals, you've continued on this lonely SexMax line of thought for reasons known only to yourself. Surely it's dawned on you that you're the only one that sees the SexMax thing as relevant to the argument? Most everyone else sees it as pedantic nonsense.

As Brad, Joan and myself (and others) have earlier suggested, it's now time to stop the irrelevant hypothetical bullshit and assemble a set if simple and usable Evo regs and submit them to MA via your club. By continuing to harp on about the stupid SexMax and calling for a year cutoff you're only complicating what should be a very simple set of rules. If you aren't ready to do something now...you'll never be ready.

LOL .. you lasted a lot longer than me this time Firko ... I stopped reading this thread a few days ago.  All respect to Nathan though .... you have serious staying power

Is it just me or has the forum traffic been quieter since these eligibilty/class thread have been running??  Just my humble opinion of course but I think we're killing the fun.  I have the luxury of multiple computer screens and a job that allows me to glance at the forum (or whatever I want) from time to time but I'm struggling to keep up with these thread.  If I am then I'm sure others are as well.  So maybe it's time to to finish up the campaign and let us all move on.

[firko]

I'm over it Simo as I'm guessing are 90% of the punters who frequent here. 

[KTM47]

As far as I'm concerned the rules for EVO do not need to be changed.

I agree. They just need to be made a lot clearer.

I am certainly not interested in changing the rules - you may have noticed that my questions have largely been about making sure my understanding of the rules matches the accepted understanding.

This was Nathan's response on page 14. So why is the debate still going on??

Who has the power to lock this thread? Please do so!!!!!!!!!!!!  Do I have a seconder for this emotion?

[Andrew L]

Apparently he only has one page to go to equal his record though.

[GMC]

Is it just me or has the forum traffic been quieter since these eligibilty/class thread have been running??  Just my humble opinion of course but I think we're killing the fun. 

[Iain Cameron]

Poor Enzo906 what a question for a newbie as the starter of this mess.  Enzo just follow the Ma rule book don't worrie about anything else and go out and enjoy your bike , keep away from here if you want to stay sane . Iain

[firko]

Who has the power to lock this thread? Please do so!!!!!!!!!!!!  Do I have a seconder for this emotion?

As much as this thread is becoming a tiresome expose into Nathans steadfast and obssesive need to be right all the time...being boring isn't proper grounds to shut down a thread. That reeks of a tad too much Big Brother.
I say keep it going, if you don't like it don't look at it (as I've been told numerous times during my anti politics stance). The only thing being hurt here is Nathans credibility.