Evo Revo

[bigk]

Ok, so we all have different ideas & seem to be missing some point or another. I have just spoken to the captain in charge of the PC nats and quote: "the EVO classes will run as per the rule book & any gray area's open to interpretation will be decided in the spirit of vmx. Common sense will prevail".
BMCC will endeavor to have the GCR's set very soon so it gives everyone time to make an informed decision as to whether you want to ride your OLD bike at the event or not. Pretty simple, just wait for the GCR's & decide for yourself.
No need to debate the semantics of the rule book.
K

[William Doe]

Unfortunately common sense cannot come into it as one persons idea of common sense can be entirely different to the next person .

Yes of course all this talk of late model hybrids is ridiculous, but as they keep saying legal by the rules as they stand .

Problem with leaving grey areas is that it leads to Mateship among officials , and if you have kissed the right arses your in if not your out 

Clear and concise definitions of what acceptable so everybody understands is what's required and is all that has ever been required     

[HVA61]

Over the past 4.0 years I have been asked asked very often , why don't you and your crew practice MX anymore and most importantly why don't we see you and your crew at every VMX meeting .

"Short answer is" why would you support rubbish like this.

[FourstrokeForever]

Clear and concise definitions of what acceptable so everybody understands is what's required and is all that has ever been required , but then apparently the mind forking option is much more fun 

And that is exactly where the problem lays....

Even though there was ample input from interested parties the commission apparently chose to ignore any, or all of those suggestions and left us with a whole new world of ambiguity with an arguably un-workable set of way too simple rules.

It seems the rules are now open to all sorts of interpretation and at the end of the day, it's up to the eligibilty scrutineer to insert their interpretation of what's acceptable and what isn't.

Allowing a set of later model, conventional drum brake forks didn't cause all this kuffafle. The wording of the rules caused it.

Apparently, 43mm forks have always been regarded as kosher in the Evo class. And in my view, so they should, on the basis that it was legal to fit Kayaba 43mm conventional forks with TLS drum brakes to any bike but some deemed and argued that it was not kosher to use 43mm Showa forks with essentially the exact same set up based simply on date of manufacture. Yet, and here's the elephant in the room, if you could find and afford a set of 44mm Fox Factory forks, you could run them on any bike you like.
As for the 45 degree brake lug or the Horizontal brake lug on the Yamaha Kayaba fork, who cares. They are both essentially the same fork at the end of the day.

[Nathan S]

Ok, so we all have different ideas & seem to be missing some point or another. I have just spoken to the captain in charge of the PC nats and quote: "the EVO classes will run as per the rule book & any gray area's open to interpretation will be decided in the spirit of vmx. Common sense will prevail".
BMCC will endeavor to have the GCR's set very soon so it gives everyone time to make an informed decision as to whether you want to ride your OLD bike at the event or not. Pretty simple, just wait for the GCR's & decide for yourself.
No need to debate the semantics of the rule book.
K

You might want to have a chat with the key people from the 2014 PCMXNs. They aimed for something similar, and were shot down in no uncertain terms.

99.99% of Aussie VMXers agree with what you're saying. The 0.01%, and the position he holds, is the roadblock to commonsense.
Until that roadblock is removed, we have to live with the ridiculous situation where Evo is not a historic class - and as the host of the Post-Classic National Title meeting, you must follow what is in the book. And where there is ambiguity, the Commission gets the final say: and the Chair of the Commission has made it abundantly clear that he thinks there is no age restriction on Evo.

This is not about commonsense. It is about procedure. And in this case, procedure can kick commonsense's arse.

[Ted]

Nathan, I would like to know if this anything from anywhere interpretation is coming from:

(1) 211... VMX participant

or

(2) David Tanner. MA Commissioner. With the full understanding, knowledge and backing from Motorcycling Australia

Because if it is (2) the Evolution class would have to be struck from CMX as you rightly say.

[Nathan S]

Well, unless Mr Tanner is playing games with us all, you'd have to assume that he's speaking as Chair of the CMX Commission. Apart from anything else, he's repeatedly referred to his role as part of the Commission - if there's a conflict between what the commission has decided and his personal point of view, then he has given every reason to believe that he's presenting the official CMX Commission position. 

A large part of the point of having commissions is that the commission becomes MA's brains trust for the particular branch of the sport. If there's a question about how Evo should be defined, MA will turn to the Commission for the answer.

So basically: what 211 says, is gospel...

The only way to change this is to have the rules rewritten to remove the ambiguity, or remove the commissioner(s) who are enforcing the "lacking in commonsense" interpretation of the rules.

[Slakewell]

Nathan instead of guessing what DT is up to why not ring him?

[211]

Well, unless Mr Tanner is playing games with us all, you'd have to assume that he's speaking as Chair of the CMX Commission. Apart from anything else, he's repeatedly referred to his role as part of the Commission - if there's a conflict between what the commission has decided and his personal point of view, then he has given every reason to believe that he's presenting the official CMX Commission position. 

A large part of the point of having commissions is that the commission becomes MA's brains trust for the particular branch of the sport. If there's a question about how Evo should be defined, MA will turn to the Commission for the answer.

So basically: what 211 says, is gospel...

The only way to change this is to have the rules rewritten to remove the ambiguity, or remove the commissioner(s) who are enforcing the "lacking in commonsense" interpretation of the rules.

I will respond to this in a separate thread in the correct place.

[Simo63]

Well, unless Mr Tanner is playing games with us all, you'd have to assume that he's speaking as Chair of the CMX Commission. Apart from anything else, he's repeatedly referred to his role as part of the Commission - if there's a conflict between what the commission has decided and his personal point of view, then he has given every reason to believe that he's presenting the official CMX Commission position. 

A large part of the point of having commissions is that the commission becomes MA's brains trust for the particular branch of the sport. If there's a question about how Evo should be defined, MA will turn to the Commission for the answer.

So basically: what 211 says, is gospel...

The only way to change this is to have the rules rewritten to remove the ambiguity, or remove the commissioner(s) who are enforcing the "lacking in commonsense" interpretation of the rules.

I will respond to this in a separate thread in the correct place.

There has been many threads on this topic.  Interested to know what is the correct place?

[oldfart]

Page 8 of the moms ....  will tell you who the chair person is ( in Bold )   

[oldfart]

Correct place was page 27- 28 of the MOMs

[Simo63]

Well, unless Mr Tanner is playing games with us all, you'd have to assume that he's speaking as Chair of the CMX Commission. Apart from anything else, he's repeatedly referred to his role as part of the Commission - if there's a conflict between what the commission has decided and his personal point of view, then he has given every reason to believe that he's presenting the official CMX Commission position. 

A large part of the point of having commissions is that the commission becomes MA's brains trust for the particular branch of the sport. If there's a question about how Evo should be defined, MA will turn to the Commission for the answer.

So basically: what 211 says, is gospel...

The only way to change this is to have the rules rewritten to remove the ambiguity, or remove the commissioner(s) who are enforcing the "lacking in commonsense" interpretation of the rules.

I will respond to this in a separate thread in the correct place.

Far out Dave .. I cannot believe you can make that "Dave Tanner's Response" post, bully people and then lock it so nobody can respond to your assertions and claims.  Do you really think that shows integrity?

Here is some integrity for you Dave.  I called MA today to complain about YOU and how you are going about changing the rules of Evo to suit yourself.  I think the way you have gone about your role in this whole issue is disgraceful going right back to the grenades you dropped before the Nats last year up until now and I will include your locked "response".  After the way you conducted yourself at that time I don't believe the organisers wanted you to have anything to do with the event last year and you know it.  Unfortunately they had no choice.

You have threatened and bullied clubs with your statements, you have changed well understood interpretation of existing rules to suit yourself and when genuinely questioned over your position, you have locked threads and attacked the people asking the questions.  Yes you have attacked the man calling them narcissistic and pathetic.  As a Commissioner you should be ashamed of yourself.

During my conversation with MA today I was asked to make a formal submission which I will be doing over the next few days.  I plan to get it there in time for it to go to the Board meeting on 18th December.

[Slakewell]

Simo63
Im curious to know why you think Dave has changed the rules to suit himself? What is his motivation?

[211]

Simmo - make it factual, make sure you are accurate - you know I will defend myself.
Its all a matter of public record Simmo - do you research.