2016 MoMS an interpretation from MA Office

[Hardo]

Kev, I'd say the way you worded the question to MA actually gave them an easy "out".

You asked about modifying a "machine". No brainer answer....

The question should actually be modifying "parts" of a machine, and up to what year can those "parts" come from? ....right?

Those are the 2 questions I have, but sheesh I dont want to waste their precious "time" with time consuming CMX queries....... 

[William Doe]

In a nutshell, there should be no need for any interpretation of the rules. It should be spelt out, word for word, exactly what is and what isn't allowed. SIMPLE

100% correct of course but how you will ever get there is beyond me .
In this techno world I would have thought that you should be able to feed all the relative information into a computer and get a machine without emotion , ego or personality to work out and print out the rules for what you want .

The human factor is the weak link personalities ,Opinions , egos and agendas from rule makers to rule enforcers will always create issues .

Another way is hand the whole thing over to a brains trust ( with no motorcycle background ) just give them a list of available bikes and parts for the era and let them formulate a set of rules.
With no motorcycle background theres little chance of ego or agenda creeping in , they are just paid to do the job 

Hand it over to the machines .

[Ted]

A far simpler thing to do would be to make it Pre 82. Include all bikes originally manufactured with air cooling, drum brakes and non linkage suspension up to and after this date and exclude all bikes and components fitted to such bikes that were not originally fitted with air cooling, drum brakes and non linkage suspension

[Nathan S]

Something like that. Or even the 2016 version of the rules, but limited to Pre-85 would be better than the nonsense we have now.

We all know where Evo is supposed to fit in the order of VMX classes - between Pre-78 and Pre-85.
Incredible that the powers that be are the only ones oblivious to this.

[KTM47]

And that's the problem: it's like going to the doctor's, and getting medical advice from the receptionist.

They might be right, they might not be - if you want THE answer, then it needs to come from the only person truely qualified to give it.

I didn't ask the receptionist and I'm sure the question was passed onto those who could give an answer. So the answer is correct.

I have asked the following question before from MA.  Who do you ask RE matters like this (not exact question).  The answer basically is all correspondence or queries must (I repeat must) go through the MA Office. So any answer from anyone other than the MA Office is not legitimate. The exception to this would be an eligibility scrutineer at a race meeting.

I also did ask another question RE modifying parts and didn't get a full answer, but was told the Yamaha "J" model forks are legal, I assuming because they bolt straight in ie don't have to be modified to fit.

If anyone else wants further clarification please email MA.

[Rossvickicampbell]

ooooh tough crowd here - but then always has been - some of you would eat your own children I reckon - just like some of us Collingwood supporters.  Rather than continue to debate on here, assume and cast allegations why don't you do what some of us have already down and contact MA re the issue you have.  It always happens that it goes round and round in circles here, we give Bill heaps to laugh at, and get no where.  It does seem like a rather large move for the EVO rules form what is needed but we have said before - the Forum is useless really for sorting it out - get off your bum and chase an answer.

[KTM47]

ooooh tough crowd here - but then always has been - some of you would eat your own children I reckon - just like some of us Collingwood supporters.  Rather than continue to debate on here, assume and cast allegations why don't you do what some of us have already down and contact MA re the issue you have.  It always happens that it goes round and round in circles here, we give Bill heaps to laugh at, and get no where.  It does seem like a rather large move for the EVO rules form what is needed but we have said before - the Forum is useless really for sorting it out - get off your bum and chase an answer.

I agree Ross

Except for one thing. I really don't think the rules have changed greatly at all.  Anyway I have asked questions of MA Office and hopefully others have too. 

Now did we all get the same answers?

[William Doe]

Even if you ask individually and get the same answer surely that speaks volumes about the systems inadequacies 

Surely you should not have to ask individually , what's correct should be written clearly and be able to be understood my licence holders and potential newcomers to the sport without having to ring an office for clarification .

[Nathan S]

Ross, the point is that regardless of what comes from MA (in whatever form), what really matters is how it goes through the judicial system.

If you think something is legal, you have every right to build it and present it at scrutiny. This is the ONLY real way of testing any questionable rule.
If I'd seen the PWK on Kevin's bike under the old rules, I'd have challenged it - the only way it could have been legal is if the "period" for Evo was undefined (as I'd been saying it was). It's definitely legal under the new rules.

It does appear that MA has a problem with saying what they mean when they write rules, at least  anything relating to CMX/CDT... We've never been able to get verbal clarification from the Chair, even in the years before tempers became frayed...

So us punters can only go on what's in the book. If we need to build bikes or send emails or know the secret handshake, then the rules have failed us.

[tymes]

Now I have to check two threads for correct grammar.

[evo550]

If I'd seen the PWK on Kevin's bike under the old rules, I'd have challenged it - the only way it could have been legal is if the "period" for Evo was undefined (as I'd been saying it was). It's definitely legal under the new rules.

I think he might have meant a "PJ" Nathan, can't imagine a PWK would fit in EVO with the old rules.

[worms]

ha humbug, when evolution machines were raced, they were raced as manufactured, with a bit of tweeking from factory specialists, not raping and pillaging of anything on two wheels, Evolution was just fine, now it's going to be a class of shitboxes made up of whatever bike. Just introduce a class called, no real meaning bitza shit.
what a shame a " revolution of classic bikes" unaltered, will now be classed with any put together shitbox, because a bunch of whingers dont know the meaning, unless it's written in every lanuage, of oem.

[Rossvickicampbell]

Nathan - whilst I agree with the "physicals" you mention have you missed my point that 99% of the people on here are just having a whinge through this thread, this time, which gets no where.  That is the point I am making - pages and pages of going around in circles here, arguing amongst each other, oftentimes pissing others off is not getting the cause anywhere.  Maybe emailing MA is not the answer but this type of thread doesn't help the cause in my opinion - they tend to become very negative very quickly - and personal.  I for one know some of the commissioners on here and can guarantee that they have the movement at heart better than most - why the rules have come out like they have I don't know but instead of whinging I will ask when next I see them.

[KTM47]

If I'd seen the PWK on Kevin's bike under the old rules, I'd have challenged it - the only way it could have been legal is if the "period" for Evo was undefined (as I'd been saying it was). It's definitely legal under the new rules.

I think he might have meant a "PJ" Nathan, can't imagine a PWK would fit in EVO with the old rules.

No PWK and I haven't made a secret of it being fitted.  I don't fit things and then see if it passes scrutineering I ask first.

Again the rules have not changed a lot, but now I have an interpretation (from the MA office the administrators of our sport) that says you can not convert a non linkage single shock bike to twin shock (or non linkage) for the class.

Keep all this up and there is a strong chance the class will go.

[Ted]

Kevvy, this class has already gone. Stay tuned