2016 MoMS out

[KTM47]

something like this perhaps!
Pre65 
Pre70   
pre75   
pre78   
Pre81            twin shock factory stock std inc yamaha cantilever, No disc, liquid, linkage or USD
Pre85   
Pre90   
Pre95  oh oh what have i done?

So you want to push the 81 Maicos and Yamahas out of the class.

Pre 95 in five years time (maybe)

ooops make that Pre82! actually what is the best cut off point? 83, 84?

Probably Pre82 is close but the Husky 500 was still twin shock in 84 and the ATKs should also be considered.  In 81 Maico, Husky, CZ and maybe some others were twin shock and the Yamahas were non linkage.

As for why do the rules need to change?

Basically we could never get a written interpretation. I asked and didn't get one. I now have one that says you can't convert a linkage single shock bike to non linkage or twin shock. Something we didn't have before.  I still want an interpretation for what parts can be used etc.

Again the rules haven't really changed greatly.

I can only speak for myself I don't want to see the following

1.  Linkage bikes converted
2.  Frames or complete bikes brought in from the UK that are used in their Twin Shock class.  You can buy a frame kit to fit most air cooled motors in a replica of a Maico frame.

No one is going to convert a KTM with PDS suspension to what they think is a EVO legal bike, but I can see frame kits being used and just frames being converted.

These would be bikes that didn't exist.

Why I'm I so out spoken?  Well I was one of the guys up here in Queensland that introduced the EVO class up here in 1997, eight years before it was in the MoMS.

Now if anyone wants to put shit on me don't waste your time I won't react. 

I won't feed the Forum Trolls.

[LWC82PE]

You cant really make EVO into pre 81 or Pre82 because theres too much of a technology overlap. Some makes were early to adopt disc/watercooling and some bikes were late going to linkage rear end. Its going to push all the twinshock Huskies, Canams, 81/82 PE's and other odd ball Euro twinshockers into Pre 85. If there was ever to be a change i think it should have a year cut off at pre 85 (84 models) and i would not bother in allowing 'follow on models' like TS185ER or DT175, XL185 unless this would really upset people I think follow on rules tend to make people see how far they bend the the rules. How many part changes constitues a bike being a non follow on model? Is it only decal changes that are allowed? as long as the changed component is not performance enhancing is the bike still allowed as a follow on? etc etc, see what i mean, people will try and see how far they can bend the rules to suit. Anyway then it needs to be called something. Something that does not clash with Pre 85. My previous example idea of Pre85 1 and Pre85 2 would probably create confusion for some. Maybe just keep it called EVO but have a 1984 model cut off but not actually have the year cut off in part of the class name, and anything with linkage/disc/watercooling obviously still goes to pre 85. Just put a 1984 model cut off on Evo and it makes things so much straight forward and would end all the drama.
If you want to build HL or CJ Honda using current repro frames, fair enough but you still gotta use a 1984 or older engine. No trying to sneak in a 1989 XR600 or whatever engine because its 'air cooled'
Evo can still be aircooled/drum brake/non linkage 'technology based' but also have 84 model cut off and also prevent the use of components off a pre 85 or pre 90 bike. This would stop 43mm TLS front ends off 84 RM's or any other front end off a pre 85 bike being used on 79/80 RM's (or other EVO bikes) I know it would upset some people but its how i think it should be.
In the end i think most people do actually want EVO to showcase 78-84 model bikes that did not have disc brakes/linkage/watercooling.

[Ted]

You cant really make EVO into pre 81 or Pre82 because theres too much of a technology overlap. Some makes were early to adopt disc/watercooling and some bikes were late going to linkage rear end. Its going to push all the twinshock Huskies, Canams, 81/82 PE's and other odd ball Euro twinshockers into Pre 85. If there was ever to be a change i think it should have a year cut off at pre 85 (84 models) and i would not bother in allowing 'follow on models' like TS185ER or DT175, XL185 unless this would really upset people I think follow on rules tend to make people see how far they bend the the rules. How many part changes constitues a bike being a non follow on model? Is it only decal changes that are allowed? as long as the changed component is not performance enhancing is the bike still allowed as a follow on? etc etc, see what i mean, people will try and see how far they can bend the rules to suit. Anyway then it needs to be called something. Something that does not clash with Pre 85. My previous example idea of Pre85 1 and Pre85 2 would probably create confusion for some. Maybe just keep it called EVO but have a 1984 model cut off but not actually have the year cut off in part of the class name, and anything with linkage/disc/watercooling obviously still goes to pre 85. Just put a 1984 model cut off on Evo and it makes things so much straight forward and would end all the drama.
If you want to build HL or CJ Honda using current repro frames, fair enough but you still gotta use a 1984 or older engine. No trying to sneak in a 1989 XR600 or whatever engine because its 'air cooled'
Evo can still be aircooled/drum brake/non linkage 'technology based' but also have 84 model cut off and also prevent the use of components off a pre 85 or pre 90 bike. This would stop 43mm TLS front ends off 84 RM's or any other front end off a pre 85 bike being used on 79/80 RM's (or other EVO bikes) I know it would upset some people but its how i think it should be.
In the end i think most people do actually want EVO to showcase 78-84 model bikes that did not have disc brakes/linkage/watercooling.

Your last two paragraphs are exactly the way Heaven and QVMX submissions read when sent to MA. Because these submissions didn't suit a commissioners view they were totally disregarded.

[Rossvickicampbell]

" Because these submissions didn't suit a commissioners view they were totally disregarded."

Excuse me Ted - do you know this for fact (please read that as a genuine question and not a go at you)?  Have you spoken to the commissioners re the outcome and what did or did not happen?  If you have thanks - if not then that is an example of my concern about this thread/forum - lots of talk but not much walk?

[Gippslander]

Lots of good discussion about the class rules -- but it seems to be going nowhere.
Is there another viewpoint?
Perhaps -- if we started from "what class rules will lead to greater participation" we might just get somewhere.

And maybe not get swayed by those who say:
   Their bikes/ideas are best because they are "of the era" or "in the spirit", or
   We must not forget why we started "we want to preserve that great era", or
   You cannot allow updates/changes/modifications because "true" enthusiasts will be left behind, or
   We do not want chequebook racing, or
   etc' etc'
   Because (sad to say) that is how clubs fade away.

My reason for asking the question is that (from what I see) in the last 10 years participation has fallen and I wonder if inappropriate rules have played a part.

[HeavenVMX]

something like this perhaps!
Pre65 
Pre70   
pre75   
pre78   
Pre81            twin shock factory stock std inc yamaha cantilever, No disc, liquid, linkage or USD
Pre85   
Pre90   
Pre95  oh oh what have i done?

So you want to push the 81 Maicos and Yamahas out of the class.

Pre 95 in five years time (maybe)

ooops make that Pre82! actually what is the best cut off point? 83, 84?

Probably Pre82 is close but the Husky 500 was still twin shock in 84 and the ATKs should also be considered.  In 81 Maico, Husky, CZ and maybe some others were twin shock and the Yamahas were non linkage.

As for why do the rules need to change?

Basically we could never get a written interpretation. I asked and didn't get one. I now have one that says you can't convert a linkage single shock bike to non linkage or twin shock. Something we didn't have before.  I still want an interpretation for what parts can be used etc.

Again the rules haven't really changed greatly.

I can only speak for myself I don't want to see the following

1.  Linkage bikes converted
2.  Frames or complete bikes brought in from the UK that are used in their Twin Shock class.  You can buy a frame kit to fit most air cooled motors in a replica of a Maico frame.

No one is going to convert a KTM with PDS suspension to what they think is a EVO legal bike, but I can see frame kits being used and just frames being converted.

These would be bikes that didn't exist.

Why I'm I so out spoken?  Well I was one of the guys up here in Queensland that introduced the EVO class up here in 1997, eight years before it was in the MoMS.

Now if anyone wants to put shit on me don't waste your time I won't react. 

I won't feed the Forum Trolls.

Heaven VMX and QVMX proposed a set of Evolution rules through the correct process.

That proposal was then butchered in the CMX/CDT minutes by omitting a number of sub-clauses pertaining to replica and safety replacement items. Then that butchered version was used by some parties to misrepresent the proposed rules at a Queensland meeting and malign QVMX and Heaven VMX.

At MA Commission level we are still unable to ascertain if our correct and full proposal was even discussed.

We wrote a letter to MA regarding the omission and resulting concerns that our proposal had not been treated fairly. To date we have received no response and no corrective action has been taken to our knowledge.

However, how the omissions of parts of our proposal from the Commission documents came about is still unknown and no one will even investigate and certainly no correction has been made. The final minutes still contain the same errors in our proposal.

The minutes called for submissions from clubs and SCBs on the proposal and we submitted further information. Along with that  second submission were signed letters supporting our proposal from 6 other clubs in NSW (each club has more than 100 members some many many more) that either run VMX/CDT classes or support VMX or CDT activities. None of these letters appear in the feedback to the Commission yet three individual views are taken into account apparently.

There is also noted in the final CMX minutes that feedback from the Queensland Classic Sub-committee was received. I have been reliably informed that this was not official correspondence via MQ. I also am reliably informed that the Sub-Committee has since been disbanded.

The final minutes of the CMX also notes feedback from the Victorian CMX Sub-committee but does not indicate whether they support or appose our proposal. I am reliably informed that it supported our proposal and was submitted correctly via MV.

The Commission or Rules Committee, we do not know who from the minutes, proposed a completely foreign set of rules that have no resemblance to the 2015 rules or our Proposal. Those rules have been implemented without any opportunity to comment or respond.

From Kevin's comments regarding pulling back all action or the class may be scrapped seems like some form of threat. I have no way of knowing if that came from MA or if Kevin just feels that so no further comment is really possible. I hope that it was just a feeling Kevin has.

We have been told continually that the MA system is democratic, this just does not appear to be the case.

Comment to the site moderators. If part or all of this post is considered too bold, informative or not in the interest of the reads? We do not give permission for you to 'snip it' as that could change the meaning of the post but total removal naturally is your prerogative.

[Nathan S]

Ross, please do not underestimate the skull-duggery and politics that are occurring behind he scenes.

You'll notice that HeavenVMX's post mentions numerous lots of unanswered questions and "funny business" (my words). This has been my experience also.

[HeavenVMX]

Late news there is now a 2016 Amendment Bulletin for download that includes the typo in the Pre75 reed valve rule.

Interestingly it is dated 16 November 2015

Is the date another typo or have they known for over a month and still released the download copy with the error in it.

The online 2016 MOMS was corrected a two days or so ago. The Amendment bulletin was not on the site when I looked yesterday.

[KTM47]

something like this perhaps!
Pre65 
Pre70   
pre75   
pre78   
Pre81            twin shock factory stock std inc yamaha cantilever, No disc, liquid, linkage or USD
Pre85   
Pre90   
Pre95  oh oh what have i done?

So you want to push the 81 Maicos and Yamahas out of the class.

Pre 95 in five years time (maybe)

ooops make that Pre82! actually what is the best cut off point? 83, 84?

Probably Pre82 is close but the Husky 500 was still twin shock in 84 and the ATKs should also be considered.  In 81 Maico, Husky, CZ and maybe some others were twin shock and the Yamahas were non linkage.

As for why do the rules need to change?

Basically we could never get a written interpretation. I asked and didn't get one. I now have one that says you can't convert a linkage single shock bike to non linkage or twin shock. Something we didn't have before.  I still want an interpretation for what parts can be used etc.

Again the rules haven't really changed greatly.

I can only speak for myself I don't want to see the following

1.  Linkage bikes converted
2.  Frames or complete bikes brought in from the UK that are used in their Twin Shock class.  You can buy a frame kit to fit most air cooled motors in a replica of a Maico frame.

No one is going to convert a KTM with PDS suspension to what they think is a EVO legal bike, but I can see frame kits being used and just frames being converted.

These would be bikes that didn't exist.

Why I'm I so out spoken?  Well I was one of the guys up here in Queensland that introduced the EVO class up here in 1997, eight years before it was in the MoMS.

Now if anyone wants to put shit on me don't waste your time I won't react. 

I won't feed the Forum Trolls.

Heaven VMX and QVMX proposed a set of Evolution rules through the correct process.

That proposal was then butchered in the CMX/CDT minutes by omitting a number of sub-clauses pertaining to replica and safety replacement items. Then that butchered version was used by some parties to misrepresent the proposed rules at a Queensland meeting and malign QVMX and Heaven VMX.

At MA Commission level we are still unable to ascertain if our correct and full proposal was even discussed.

We wrote a letter to MA regarding the omission and resulting concerns that our proposal had not been treated fairly. To date we have received no response and no corrective action has been taken to our knowledge.

However, how the omissions of parts of our proposal from the Commission documents came about is still unknown and no one will even investigate and certainly no correction has been made. The final minutes still contain the same errors in our proposal.

The minutes called for submissions from clubs and SCBs on the proposal and we submitted further information. Along with that  second submission were signed letters supporting our proposal from 6 other clubs in NSW (each club has more than 100 members some many many more) that either run VMX/CDT classes or support VMX or CDT activities. None of these letters appear in the feedback to the Commission yet three individual views are taken into account apparently.

There is also noted in the final CMX minutes that feedback from the Queensland Classic Sub-committee was received. I have been reliably informed that this was not official correspondence via MQ. I also am reliably informed that the Sub-Committee has since been disbanded.

The final minutes of the CMX also notes feedback from the Victorian CMX Sub-committee but does not indicate whether they support or appose our proposal. I am reliably informed that it supported our proposal and was submitted correctly via MV.

The Commission or Rules Committee, we do not know who from the minutes, proposed a completely foreign set of rules that have no resemblance to the 2015 rules or our Proposal. Those rules have been implemented without any opportunity to comment or respond.

From Kevin's comments regarding pulling back all action or the class may be scrapped seems like some form of threat. I have no way of knowing if that came from MA or if Kevin just feels that so no further comment is really possible. I hope that it was just a feeling Kevin has.

We have been told continually that the MA system is democratic, this just does not appear to be the case.

Comment to the site moderators. If part or all of this post is considered too bold, informative or not in the interest of the reads? We do not give permission for you to 'snip it' as that could change the meaning of the post but total removal naturally is your prerogative.

Greg you are correct my statement RE possibly losing the class is just my gut feelings based on emails I have and other things which I will not elaborate on (so don't ask). It is also based on experience at SCB and MA level.  Yes the Qld Historic Sub-Committee has been suspended due to some members not being willing to stop pursuing certain matters. This is MQ business so ask them if you want to know, but be warned like MA they are feed up with it all.

In my opinion anything we do now has to be a united approach and we may need to compromise.

I use the word "we" because although getting a statement saying converting linkage bikes to twin shock (or non linkage) is not permitted, there are other matters that I believe have not been resolved.

[Rossvickicampbell]

Gents - the other small one that was also previously mentioned but has dropped by the way is the requirement to move number plates 200mm or more backwards from the riders footrest - not such an easy task on some of the older bikes.

Wrote to MA asking for clarification round this since it appears to have not been a problem for so many years and additionally at major meets transponders are used?

See what they come back with.

[Ted]

Kevin, We don't buy this, go through the right channels b.s. to get answers. HeavenVMX has proved that in his above post with numerous questions asked and absolutely no answers received.

What concerns us is the way the latest MoMS is reading regarding the Evolution class.

Below is what was written on this forum on  February 22 / 2011 from forum member 211 ( who was then, and still is now, the Chairman of Classic Vintage Motocross ) 211 was also the one who wrote the Evolution class rules into the book from the get go.


211kawasaki
Guest

Re: Those poms have lost the plot.
<Reply #40 on: February 22, 2011, 06:32:55 PM>
Comrad Jikov,
leave the Evo's ( whopps, sorry thats Evolution) alone 
Evo was the progression/next step from the pre 78 and 75 and was the next step taken with a lead from the American performance. I think its worked very well as a class and should be left alone. There is Pre 85 in the book if you have a disk front end or water cooling so there are plenty of options. Evo is in my view deserving as a place in the history of the progression of the sport - when it was put in the rule book none of us would have ever considered pre 85 or dare I say pre 90 but one is also in and pre 90 may well be soon as well, who knows?
What I do know is that modifying later gear for any aspect of the sport is not allowed - period

211


If at first you don't succeed, give up and drink beer



How this statement is even remotely associated to the 2016 MoMS rules beggars belief.

And you wonder why we feel as we do

[bigk]

Hind sight is 20/20 & people have to move with the times. I don't know what went on behind closed doors (don't want to) but if it's all done & dusted for 2016, why keep on about it? Embrace the current rulings & have some fun building or riding a compliant bike. The alleged "franken bike" has been dismissed as illegal for EVO (for obvious reasons) so why fear it?  If the EVO rulings eat you out that much, simply don't compete in the class. I still think the 10 metre rule should apply, pre'75, pre'78 & Evo bikes are easy to spot, if looks like either from 10 metres, that's where it fits.
K

[Graeme M]

And I think we might stop at this point. Plenty of good discussion and I gather most people now understand the issues. If anyone wants to start a thread on how to fix the situation feel free, but remember the usual caveats of not attacking individuals or organisations. Please stick to the point and what can be done, rather than indulge in idle speculation.

[211]

suggest a tour of the MA web site and the minutes as published. the finals are available to see.

[Nathan S]

Our MA?
http://www.dirtbikeworld.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1962978#post1962978