79 CR250 Front End Conversion

[supersenior 50]

Here we go again. This furore did a lot of damage leading up to the recent Post Classic Nats. We have lost a couple of valued and respected riders over this, and although I don't mix with a lot of Evo riders I know of four who didnt enter because of the fuss about this issue. Leading up to the Classic/Post Classic Qld titles I fielded several queries from Evo riders re this issue. When I assured them we would adhere to the official ruling (backed up by legal advise) and there would be no nonsence, they entered.
After 10 years of relatively peacefull competition, with no protests at National titles, it would seem the Evolution Rules have served the class well
I can't understand why this paticular bear has to be prodded yet again

[Davey Crocket]

That's simple Col, because it's not right. They [the cheaters] bring it back up, it doesn't happen in any other class so why bastardise EVO?....as they say, it's how YOU read the rules to suit your own agenda.

[bishboy]

I don't want to turn this into another rule debate fiasco, but in an effort to make it crystal clear and remove any individual interpretation,

could the following 
16.15.12.3 All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured

be changed to something along the lines of
16.15.12.3 All components will be of a machine originally manufactured as:

 

[supersenior 50]

John my only agenda is that i can see a simple rule that has served us well continues to be a sourse of continuing agravation to the detriment of our sport. The use of the term "Cheaters"to describe those  who have bikes that comply with the Evo rules but don't agree with your interpretation is unworthy. It is not the "cheaters" who keep bringing this up ( in fact if there are cheaters they would likely stay under the radar).
If you think someone is cheating you have the right to protest.

[smed]

Perhaps the rules should be modified so there can only be one interpretation

IE, Only motorcycles or parts can be used in any combination that are derived from air cooled,non disc brake,non linkage machines,No machines or parts modified or derived from machines with watercooling,disc brakes or linkage suspension will be eligible.

Or something like that

[smed]

Or if we are swinging the other way.

Any aircooled motor,any drum brake font end is eligible

[smed]

Or.
No external modifications to fork, brakes or engine permitted,only stock original components off the original machine make & model to be used 

Do any of those three options appeal?
Either open slather,sharing components between other EVO bikes or no mods

[oldfart]

smed  you are beating an old drum .....  this has been done to death on an other thread.

[smed]

smed  you are beating an old drum .....  this has been done to death on an other thread.

Yeah I know,It's been chewed over like an old bone for ages & it will keep coming up till the rule wording is changed to be more clear

[Ted]

Let them go Stewy.....they miss the swingarm thread

[marshallmech]

16.15.12.2 Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed.
16.15.12.3 All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured:

Well i must be illiterate if you can read this any other way  please clarify
And for the matter of OME Yamaha forks are not OME to honda  they could not be brought from Honda so not an OME Honda part 

[Davey Crocket]

Marsh old mate, how they turn it around to suit there agenda is they say they don't have to "modify" anything.....they mix and match components off different models to make them fit.....I'm with you, to me it's black and white...you can't take major components off the next era, ie pre85 forks in a EVO bike, pre 85 bikes are linkage bla bla, ....ie later equipment.....doesn't matter if its still drum brake, it's later equipment.

[marshallmech]

Yes i,m with you Davey but we may as well bang our heads on the wall.
If a rule can be read differently by different  people then it needs to be clarified.
Thats all im saying rules should be black and white and if they are not  then this sort of argument will always come up. 

[Ted]

It will be interesting to see what bikes pass at the upcoming Conondale Classic

[KTM47]

The biggest problem with the rules is they aren't enforced across the board. 

"it's only a Club Day" is the biggest load of bulls#$t I have ever heard.  There is only one rule book.  Until every rule is enforced at club level right through to National Championships this debate will keep coming up.

I have seen Yamaha's in EVO with the safety seat combo (seat and tank) from an 82 model.  "It isn't an advantage" is the statement I get.  The other one is they are OEM.  In some peoples view if it is made by the same manufacturer (OEM) it should be legal.

My bike has a very hard clutch pull.  It has a Magura lever assembly, so I should be able to fit a Magura Hydraulic clutch lever assembly.  It would be OEM.

As for getting legal advice.  Lawyers are smart, unless it is something totally ridiculous they will give you the opinion they think you want to hear.

And yes the GCRs in the MOMS do need up-dating and in some places simplifying.