Yamaha yz465 h fork legs

[evo550]

Back to your original question, "J" model lower legs where different to the "H" model, not only with the obvious brake lug location, but the "J" also ran compression damping adjustment (the little knob underneath the fork leg) which would require you to also run "J" damping rod.....a lot of fcuking around so you can still run the "H" upper leg. Might as well change the front end all together....Bugger.

[Nathan S]

YZ250/465G upper tubes are longer than the later Yamaha 43mm forks.
I believe the LHS (brake side) lower leg is the same/very similar to YZ125L, but the RHS one is clearly different (clamp on axle retainer plate, vs pinch bolts).

[sa63]

  "Certain individuals getting people to sign blank pieces of paper and calling it a petition."

Are you referring to the petition at the Qld Champs Ted?

[KTM47]

Well thanks for the helpful info on the forks issue guys, I think I will just leave them on there ,as I believe sourcing the originals will be difficult and if they are currently legal ,they will do.

Yes don't go changing them.  This is just my opinion.

As for the submissions being changed in the minutes yes that did occur.  It would appear that that is why MA extended the deadline for responses.  Again this is just a guess.

[Graham]

  "Certain individuals getting people to sign blank pieces of paper and calling it a petition."

Are you referring to the petition at the Qld Champs Ted?

Strange how someone would think that 120 riders would sign a blank bit of paper, must think  they are all dim witts, including the 40 members from his own QVMX club,

[Nathan S]

Any page of signatures has to include the full wording of the petition on them to be valid.
Failing to do this, demonstrates a "shoot from the hip" mentality, at best.

More importantly, when people are told a partisan and arguably inaccurate version of the story, so they'll sign the petition, it poses questions about fairness and partiality of the process and the people involved in the process.

What offends me most is that it appears the main motivation was to avoid any solution to the on-going rule ambiguity. I have no problem the people disagreeing with the proposal, but a simple, blanket rejection to the proposal, rather than working with it, is not helping the sport.

[Graham]

Really Nathan 120 riders understand that the evo rules as they stand are fine, if it looks like a evo, rides like a evo, its an EVO.  All this crap about WR 500 engines and bigger forks, does not make any difference to the out come of a race.Its the pilot of the machine, as was proved at the QLD Titles the biggest event in QLD

[Nathan S]

Then what's the point in having eligibility rules at all?

[Graham]

Then what's the point in having eligibility rules at all?

Maybe the question should be why change something thats NOT broken. There are rules already in place and they work

[Nathan S]

Not many people think the rules cannot be improved.
The fact that the person who formulated this petition apparently felt the need to misrepresent the QVMX and Heaven submissions, shows that they have an agenda beyond trying to make the sport run as smoothly as possible.

If the petition was formulated by someone competent, they'd have followed the basic rules of petitions. If they had any interest in fairness, they'd have also included a FULL copy of the proposals for punters to view before signing.
But neither of these things happened.

Nobody wants wholesale change to the rules. We want to see rules that people understand and can be enforced.
Why is that a problem?