Bored at work and thinking VMX

[firko]

This has to stop Nathan. We've agreed on far too many things lately. I'm not amused!

[bigk]

Scutineer data sheet, evlotion class: No disc brakes, no watercooling, no linkage suspension. Three ticks, how hard is that?
K

[firko]

Surely you can see that something that simple will be abused?
Oh look, it's nearly 3 o'clock, I'm off to the pub.

[bigk]

OK, so where would Brad's (090) ME360 he has on ebay sit with class regulations, given that it has an '81 front end and a modified '81 swingarm. Item # 290248298081. I say evo legal but by the letter of the rule book, it isn't and would have go in the pre'85 class, which is wrong IMO. I can't really see how the basic simple criteria can be abused either.
K

[Wombat]

Here's some galvanising topics: Guns, abortion, cats, religion, politics, should we be in Iraq... and now VMX 'IN THE SPIRIT'.
Rules are quoted, opinions are firm, minds are made up, heels are dug in and no-one is prepared to give any ground.

Maybe 'in the spirit' needs definition?
Dunno, I'm trying to be objective but I'm leaning/tilting/tipping onto bigk's side of the fence (and before ya say it I know it's not about 'sides or teams'!!!)
It's discussion and it's debate and it's quite interesting.

Having disclosed my leanings I've lost some grip on the objectivity of the discussion (not really, but that will be the perception).
I think 'in the spirit' is what the 'big bore Honda' idea is about.
Not the dictionary definition of 'replica', not putting the magnifying glass on the rules and saying "I told you so - it's not in the rules so stop pushing it".
and not because the bike didn't exist back in the day. We know that...the idea is meant 'in the spirit', not 'in the rule book'.

I think we all have a different idea of what 'in the spirit' means.

Let's face it, we're all polarised in our views... and I fully respect and understand both sides of the debate.
Your turn...   

[Maico31]

I just looked at the Evo rules again and it says: No linkage suspension, No disc brakes and Air cooled motors. But it also says: Modifications converting later model equipment to comply will not be allowed. That basically says to me that you can't use an engine from a later model of the same brand. 

[magoo]

The most ridiculous comment made so far came from  my old mate Natehan "riding a different brand of bike". Now you're being silly young fella, there is no other brand.

By the way this is a good, interesting debate. The boys are getting passionate without slagging each other off, the way it should be.

[Rossvickicampbell]

dont know - I may have missed some of the point here as I have just gone through the 7 pages of this thread but for the majority of us (I believe anyway) I bought a 78 CR250 and raced the 250 class - there was no big bore.  If I had a CR450 I would race in that era class etc - not try and back date it for want of better words.  What I mean is how many people does this effect - if we are not racing for sheep stations then why not race the 450 in its relevant era rather than try and fit it into an earlier era?  I looked at Brads ME360 and thought I wouldn't mind a bid or two - but then worried about the later front end and back swingarm and thought well just ride it in the later class?  Is that a problem?  We seem to argue about where a bike fits as if we were racing for titles?

Not well explained but heopefully the point is there.

cheers

Rossco

[Nathan S]

And my humble opinion, having a class simply caused EVO is where it all falls down. Sometime back i suggested,



From what i am hearing the main change needed would be changing the Pre81 to Pre82.
As best i can work out, Australia seems to be the only country that uses EVO as a class rather than refering it to as a period and then having sub classes fall under it. Under the above matrix, Frankenstiened bikes, Works replicas, etc, like the RC450 of BigK's, would be o/k.

Its taken me a while to process it all, and I don't agree 100% with everything Bahnsy said in that post, but I reckon he's pretty well hit the nail on the head.

Evo (as a class) is the only VMX category that has no minimum age limits. This is where the confusion comes from.

If you look at a pre-75 bike (for example), it is generally easy to work out whether it is legal or not, even if it is highly modified.
Each component of the bike will fit into one of three basic categories of eligibility, according to the rules:
1. Free (eg: handle bars, levers, paint work),
2. Generally free, but with some restrictions (eg: exhaust pipes, shock absorbers, ignitions).
3. Limited to period parts (eg: engine cases, forks).

Yes, the rules are a bit vague, and the 'flow-on' models and replica parts both muddy the waters, but I'm sure everyone will agree that that's the basic framework for all of the bike-age-specific categories.

But, our Evo rules don't define any sort of period, just a broad specification, along with an unstated assumption that the bikes will be 1978 to 1982-ish models. But while that is not spelled out explicitly, then it cannot be enforced, and only the first two categories can be enforced.
At which point, we're inviting Dutch style bikes....

The Evo rules need some sort of clear line in the sand.
The bit about "Bikes must be OEM" tries to be the line in the sand, but it fails because if it is actually impossibly restrictive ("Don't have OEM tyres? You'd better load 'er back onto the trailer son, 'cause your bike don't comply. And that aftermarket gearlever aint welcome 'round here neither!").
And apart from that, it is easily circumvented by entering the bike as a Homebuilt 2008 model - remember, Evo doesn't specify a minimum bike age.

There are numerous ways to draw that line in the sand. Personally, I like
"A bike will be eligible for the Evo class if it meets all of the following criteria:
1. Be made before 1985 (or be carry-over models),
2. Be air cooled.
3. Have drum brakes only.
4. Have non-linkage suspension.
All major components must be from Evo bikes, or have been available before 1981"

I understand that that's more restrictive than most people would like, and I sure don't feel like defending it to the death or anything - but it is a clear, workable rule that eliminates all of the current confusion. It could easily be tweaked in whatever direction you wanted (allowing drum-brake forks from a non-Evo bike, for example).

[DJRacing]

Nathan, how many years/periods do you want in the rules? 1981? 1985? Remember that this is ‘vintage’ motocross so the bike’s need to be old bikes, not new old models. Even though the newer bikes with twin shocks, air cooled and drum brakes wouldn’t pose much of a threat, they are still not vintage.

  Below is an example of rules;
In the case of the so called RC450 Replica bike or even an SR420 Replica bike, could be raced if it was just a motor change into their corresponding chassis (1979/80 CR250 and KX250A5), as those motors fall within the evo period (pre82).


18.7.12        Pre 82 Evolution Class
18.7.12.1     Only bikes with non linkage suspension, drum brakes and air cooled
                  motors to be eligible.
18.7.12.2     Modifying post and period parts to comply will not be allowed.
18.7.12.3     After-market parts to be period specific.
18.7.12.4      Flow on?? (If you want to have flow on bikes)

18.7.13         Evolution Classes- Classes
                   a)   Solo 125cc,
                   b)   Solo 250cc,
                   c)   Solo 263cc and over.

18.7.13.1      Age groups are;
                   a)   Under 40 years of age.
                   b)   40 years of age or over.


Ok, yes I know some people will be displeased with the "Pre 82" period, but as I see it, not having a period/year cut off is where allot of the problems seem to come from. The manufacturers of the bikes in question were happy to run their bikes against the linkaged/watercooled bikes of the day so why is it different now?
Amendments for certain bikes could be catered for if the need arise. (e.g.  YZ125H,  Husky’s etc.)

[Maico31]

I think it's important that we preserve the Evo class for twin shock and non linkage bikes.. they are the end of an era and in my opinion still look like vintage bikes with 2 shocks (except yamaha), drum brakes and air cooling. There is no need for year cutoffs, otherwise what does the guy do who has an '82, '83 or '84 Husky with 2 shocks, air cooling and drum brakes. If we start letting in the hybrid works replica's it will become a shit-fight and people will start turnng up with anything and everything trying to pass it off as an Evo bike. What is 'flow on' in the Evo class??

[090]

I think DJ means 82 as a cut off only of twin shock (evo) bikes. He is saying that linkage bikes are still not allowed. Follow ons would include the Huskies and the like. 1982 is the latest that an evo bike can be, bar a few 'follow on ' models.

[DJRacing]

Thanks Brad 

As Brad(090) says their are some Twin shocked, Air cooled and drum braked bikes after the pre82 date, but not allot, so add them in as "flow on bikes" (name the models) and you would now have a class that is period specific that would allow only 3 big bore motors from 1981 to be changed into an older chassis. The RM465, the CR450 and the KX420. In the 250 class I'm not sure but I think it is just the RM and KX that were still aircooled bikes that had linkage suspension, but then the "CC" rating is still the same.
You wouldn't be able to modify the 1981 linkage bikes back to twin shock (like they do in europe) because of the rule 18.7.12.2 so that keeps it just to Twin shock and yamaha mono shock chassis and air cooled motors and drum brakes.

As for forks, when did Honda make 42mm forks? If they were fitted to 1981 Honda's then they would be totally acceptable as would any part from 1981, providing it wasnt disc brakes, water cooling or linkage suspension.

[DJRacing]

Before people start jumping up and down about changing motors of the big bore class, as I have said it is only 3 bikes, the RM465, and why anyone would want to change their RM400T (being the last RM to have twin shocks) to a 465 I wouldnt know. 65cc isnt going to help them if they cant do it with 400cc. Not to mention that it would probably devalue their RM400N/T by putting a 465 motor in it as it wouldnt be an orginal bike any more.
As for the other 2 bikes (KX420 and CR450), well at the present time no such bikes can race in the evo class, but here is a chance to have more bikes on the line that normally wouldnt be there. And the lover's of these two brands I bet would gladly want to take on the YZ465's, Maico 490's and any other brands.

[Maico31]

It doesn't really bother me to let those engines be used but an RM500 engine looks like a 465, a CR480 engine painted red looks like a 450 and so on. I think it will make the scrutineers job harder and open up a can of worms and the rules will be more complicated and have to be worded very carefully. It's sounds confusing where you can't use a '81 RM465, CR450 or KX420 bike but you can use the engine. People will wanna know if you can use an '81 single shock engine why can't you use an '82 3 or 4, it's still aircooled? Jeez i'd hate to be a scrutineer!