What bikes are eligible for what classes

[jimg1au]

here is a good questions why do moms rules change from year to year.like reviewed
2011 book lists all parts that can be used in pre65
2013 not there anymore.what you cant use them now???
so if you start collecting stuff for your pre65 in 2011 its not finished yet mine isnt
can you use the same parts now
jim

[jimg1au]

19 pages omg

[albrid-3]

If your not switch on by now about bike eligibility you will never been, you may as well give up thinking about VMX and go fishing.

[KTM47]

Congratulations enzo906 nineteen pages and counting, that must be a record for a first time post.

[Montynut]

Funny thing is, despite eighteen pages and plenty of different marksmen stepping up, nobody's managed to land a shot on it yet. The sense of frustration is clear - all the shots at me and the dredging up irrelevancies show this (google "cognitive dissonance" for one part of it).

What a crock of pompous shit Nathan. You honestly believe that you're on another intelligence level from us don't you? People have been throwing common sense at you from the beginning but because of your inbuilt inability to accept anyone else's arguments you've dismissed it all as "cognitive dissonance" or irrelevancies . I think that only person suffering that disorder on here is you. You're making a total twat of yourself but you can't see it through the narcissistic haze ..............Faaaarrrk.

Here here

The thing is Nathan the forum persona and Nathan the person are completely different people. That is the danger of a Forum I guess and also the biggest thing against things like Facebook and all the other social media crap.

Nathan to be an OEM surely you need to have some form of manufacturing basis and actually sell bikes not just build a 'special' and call it whatever. Once you try to sell your creation you need to meet all requirements of a company/business and KTM may just have some input on the matter. Remember bikes like the WMW bikes from wyong a massive commitment for the shop. It is not about changing a couple of things and calling it a new name. I would think the intent of the rules could easily be used to over rule your position on your modified KTM if it ended up in court.

I  will not debate it with you as I have learnt often enough not to augue with you as it is like having the vomits and diarrhea. You have two overwelming needs and desires but they totally conflict. As in do I sit on the crapper (put forward logical debate with Nathan and encourage him for 19 pages) or put my head in the crapper (try to ignore Nathan and then see 19 pages of circular rubbish).

All of this has absolutely positively no impact or affect on the rules it is just clutter.

[KTM47]

I agree with Montynut.

Also if anyone has any doubt over the term OEM it is defined on page 42 of MOMs 1.1.0.22. So any bike that is manufactured from an existing bike is not eligible.

Is someone going to make a bike from scratch? I don't think so. Anyway the Father of the Evo class doesn't think so.

Kevin

[Nathan S]

I agree with Montynut.

Also if anyone has any doubt over the term OEM it is defined on page 42 of MOMs 1.1.0.22. So any bike that is manufactured from an existing bike is not eligible.

Is someone going to make a bike from scratch? I don't think so. Anyway the Father of the Evo class doesn't think so.

Kevin

Page 41,

1.1.0.22: "OEM" means Original Equipment Manufacturer.

That's all of it! 
There's a long history of "backyard" bikes that are made around other companies' equipment - an early GasGas is a KX-copy frame with a TM motor in it, and aftermarket forks & shock (etc).
Nobody says "GasGas is not the OEM"...
The SexMax would be very much in the same vein. If it made any difference, then I'd be happy to start fitting Beta motors to it, but the retail price has to go up to $39,990....

[Nathan S]

If it makes it clearer and stops the irrelevant discussion about commercial legalities, let's pretend someone built a new-design Evo bike, using top spec-2013 technology - and air/drums/PDS.
With reference to the 2013 MoMS, tell me how it isn't Evo legal?
It's not out of the question that someone will do this: you can buy 2013 built copies of 1981 Maicos, and they're not a bargain basement option.

Currently, Evo is NOT a historic class. It's open to bikes - and components- designed and/or made from 1885 to 2013.

To repeat myself for the 7,329th time: We agree on the basic intent. There's some disagreement on the details. The rules as written do not support even the broad intent. I believe that should be fixed.

[KTM47]

I agree with Montynut.

Also if anyone has any doubt over the term OEM it is defined on page 42 of MOMs 1.1.0.22. So any bike that is manufactured from an existing bike is not eligible.

Is someone going to make a bike from scratch? I don't think so. Anyway the Father of the Evo class doesn't think so.

Kevin

Page 41,

1.1.0.22: "OEM" means Original Equipment Manufacturer.

That's all of it! 
There's a long history of "backyard" bikes that are made around other companies' equipment - an early GasGas is a KX-copy frame with a TM motor in it, and aftermarket forks & shock (etc).
Nobody says "GasGas is not the OEM"...
The SexMax would be very much in the same vein.

No it wouldn't. Those companies would have an agreement with the company they get the parts from and would get them direct from that manufacturer. They wouldn't buy the whole bike off a showroom floor.

The agreement would give them the right to call the bike theirs.

The same as Kawasaki and Suzuki had an agreement that had each of them re-badgeing different bikes as each others DRZ 400, KLX 400, KX65, RM65 etc.

[Nathan S]

While I disagree on the commercial stuff, its utterly irrelevant to what's in the MOMS, and what can be enforced at an event.

[KTM47]

To repeat myself for the 7,329th time: We agree on the basic intent. There's some disagreement on the details. The rules as written do not support even the broad intent. I believe that should be fixed.

Can you fit that many posts into 19 pages?

If you believe that should be fixed, well f$#@ing fix it!!!!!!!!!!

[JohnnyO]

Kev, save your brain cells for echo valley in 2 weeks

[IT400C]

If it makes it clearer and stops the irrelevant discussion about commercial legalities, let's pretend someone built a new-design Evo bike, using top spec-2013 technology - and air/drums/PDS.
With reference to the 2013 MoMS, tell me how it isn't Evo legal?
It's not out of the question that someone will do this: you can buy 2013 built copies of 1981 Maicos, and they're not a bargain basement option.

Currently, Evo is NOT a historic class. It's open to bikes - and components- designed and/or made from 1885 to 2013.

To repeat myself for the 7,329th time: We agree on the basic intent. There's some disagreement on the details. The rules as written do not support even the broad intent. I believe that should be fixed.

Delusional.....

(Google it Nathan)

[topari]

If it makes it clearer and stops the irrelevant discussion about commercial legalities, let's pretend someone built a new-design Evo bike, using top spec-2013 technology - and air/drums/PDS.
With reference to the 2013 MoMS, tell me how it isn't Evo legal?

Interesting. I saw sometimes ago a 67 or something CZ 250 which had brand new gold billet hubs which were exact copies of the originals, new forks tubes and many other items which were reproduced using todays tools. It looked like a 68 CZ but re made using todays technology.

[Rookie#1]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz