Simons upside down forks

[KTM47]

That's now four threads (in the last fortnight) we have used to discuss EVO rules (five if you count the one that is already closed).

What does everyone think the next one will be called?

[mustanggrahame]

I think it shows how important it is to get sorted out.

[supersenior 50]

It is reasonably sorted out and has been for many years, hense the healthy state of the Evo class. This whole debate was kicked off by two guys ( neither of whom currently ride Evo) with a personal axe to grind. Had they not, this conversation wouldn't be happening.

[DJRacing]

Re: Those Poms have lost the plot.
« Reply #60 on: February 23, 2011, 11:08:30 AM »
Quote
2. We need to define whether an Evo-legal bike simply has to have air-cooling, drum brakes and no-linkage rear suspension, or whether it has to be made up of major components from bikes that are also Evo-legal bikes.
I strongly think that if we go with the former then we'll end up with lots of crap like the "CR Maico" that started this thread, while the second option keeps it historically relevant/representative (and in keeping with all of the other era-classes). Regardless, it needs to be addressed and a decision made.
Without wanting (or needing) to get involved in a deep philosophical discussion with Nathan, I reckon the Evo rules are pretty right as they are. If it's air cooled, twin shock or non linkage suspended and drum braked all is good as long as it's made extremely clear that all major components (engine, frame and forks) must derive from an Evo legal bike. That means no forks from disc braked later models with the caliper brackets machined off (Sorry Magoo), No aircooled CR500 or KX500 powered anything, No gear drive Maico 490 powered anything, no single shock bikes being fitted with twin shocks.

Common sense rules when it comes to  DT175/TS185ER/XT250K/XL185, type 513/514 CZs being allowed.
There's little chance of any of those bikes having any bearing on the results so why not allow them. The attraction of Evo has been the simplicity of the rules. While the other classes often get bogged down in the details, Evo has been a success mainly due to its simplicity. The rules are easy to understand and if they're followed religiously by both racer and scrutineer, it's easy to maintain a reasonably trouble free class. The only "problems" seem to be overseas or from racers trying to replicate "works bikes" using inelligible components.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2011, 01:03:36 PM by firko »
Report to moderator     Logged
211kawasaki
Guest

Re: Those Poms have lost the plot.
« Reply #61 on: February 23, 2011, 11:25:44 AM »
You know Mark I always wondered what would happen is a brace DT175s and a couple or ER185 suzukis started turning up to the 250 EVOs - Id be watching for sure, would be good racing between them (or am I a little weird)?

DT
Report to moderator     Logged

[matcho mick]

"MODIFICATION" When I come to NZ, which Ive done several times (and greatly enjoyed it) I'll ride whatever I'm loaned and be thankfull for it. I rode a "Pre 75" bike at two separate meetings that had 9 inches of travel front and rear. I didnt think it necessary or polite to write to anyone, or post on this forum criticising another jurisdictions rules or interpretation of them.
If you come to Australia, and I hope you do, you'll be most welcome. I trust you'll afford us the same courtesy.
I repeat, neither in NZ nor hear, you are not being affected by our rules.

hear hear, ,
ps GP's on c ya's

[matcho mick]

"MODIFICATION" When I come to NZ, which Ive done several times (and greatly enjoyed it) I'll ride whatever I'm loaned and be thankfull for it. I rode a "Pre 75" bike at two separate meetings that had 9 inches of travel front and rear. I didnt think it necessary or polite to write to anyone, or post on this forum criticising another jurisdictions rules or interpretation of them.
If you come to Australia, and I hope you do, you'll be most welcome. I trust you'll afford us the same courtesy.
I repeat, neither in NZ nor hear, you are not being affected by our rules.

hear hear, ,
ps GP's on ,c ya's

[KTM47]

Re: Those Poms have lost the plot.
« Reply #60 on: February 23, 2011, 11:08:30 AM »
Quote
2. We need to define whether an Evo-legal bike simply has to have air-cooling, drum brakes and no-linkage rear suspension, or whether it has to be made up of major components from bikes that are also Evo-legal bikes.
I strongly think that if we go with the former then we'll end up with lots of crap like the "CR Maico" that started this thread, while the second option keeps it historically relevant/representative (and in keeping with all of the other era-classes). Regardless, it needs to be addressed and a decision made.
Without wanting (or needing) to get involved in a deep philosophical discussion with Nathan, I reckon the Evo rules are pretty right as they are. If it's air cooled, twin shock or non linkage suspended and drum braked all is good as long as it's made extremely clear that all major components (engine, frame and forks) must derive from an Evo legal bike. That means no forks from disc braked later models with the caliper brackets machined off (Sorry Magoo), No aircooled CR500 or KX500 powered anything, No gear drive Maico 490 powered anything, no single shock bikes being fitted with twin shocks.

Common sense rules when it comes to  DT175/TS185ER/XT250K/XL185, type 513/514 CZs being allowed.
There's little chance of any of those bikes having any bearing on the results so why not allow them. The attraction of Evo has been the simplicity of the rules. While the other classes often get bogged down in the details, Evo has been a success mainly due to its simplicity. The rules are easy to understand and if they're followed religiously by both racer and scrutineer, it's easy to maintain a reasonably trouble free class. The only "problems" seem to be overseas or from racers trying to replicate "works bikes" using inelligible components.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2011, 01:03:36 PM by firko »
Report to moderator     Logged
211kawasaki
Guest

Re: Those Poms have lost the plot.
« Reply #61 on: February 23, 2011, 11:25:44 AM »
You know Mark I always wondered what would happen is a brace DT175s and a couple or ER185 suzukis started turning up to the 250 EVOs - Id be watching for sure, would be good racing between them (or am I a little weird)?

DT
Report to moderator     Logged

The basic definition of EVO above is how IMO it should be.  The only thing I would add is carry over components can be permitted.  If an engine is basically the same as an EVO legal bike, but it was in a linkage bike it can be used.  And yes I do have a vested interest in this.  The motor would need to be the same capacity too.

The problem now is how to word it as rules.

I will submit my suggestions to MA, to be considered by the commission before the final commission decision by the MA Board.  My suggestions won't go through a club or SCB.  If anyone wants to question this I can show you in the MOMS were that is encouraged and permitted.

Kevin

[DJRacing]

You do realize that they are two different quotes in that message, the first one is Firko and he has quoted someone else at the start and then replied to it and then Kawasaki 211 is the very next post after Firko. The only reason for posting it was because I thought the same as Firko and would've thought he might have been corrected.
I will lock this thread now since I think we have all expressed our opinions and let it go though the correct channels.

[DJRacing]

Back open for your freedom of speech .

[211]

Back open for your freedom of speech .

DJ
what was point 1 in that comment from Mark?

[DJRacing]

Dave, Mark didn't make the point 2 comment, he quoted it from Nathan. Marks reply starts at.....
Without wanting (or needing) to.......
I just copied and pasted it from "those poms have lost the plot thread" and when I pasted it up it came up the way it did with no colour to say it was quoted etc.
The thread is in the dumbegon, "those poms have lost the plot" by 090. Nathan's post is on pg4 and Marks post is on pg5.