What is your definition of VINTAGE?

[Nathan S]

Are we making classes for bike, or classes for riders?

[Nathan S]

Fine. Let's get full grids at every race by ditching those pesky and irrelevant classes altogether.

After all, we've just established that improvements to power, suspension and brakes mean nothing, so I guess we've all been wasting our time seperating bikes based on capacity and/or age. Hell, by that logic, we shouldn't need seperate vintage races at all - a 45 year old bike should be competitive against the moderns, providing we stay on grass tracks....



I don't dispute that the rider has a lot to do with it - but if we keep the bikes in categories of broadly similar machinery, then its the rider that makes the difference. And neither of you will be able to argue agaisnt the simple fact that (after some time to get aquainted) everybody would be faster on a 77 YZ125/RM125 than on a CR125M (these bikes being the best 125s of the accepted pre-75 and pre-78 eras).

[Nathan S]

Sorry... Too many idiots at work today, tolerance levels dangerously low. 

Can you bring/will you have one of your YZ-C shock springs at CD6?

[albrid-3]

 Holeshots New model ford ute, nice wood grain,

[firko]

Here's my take on the class cutoffs.
Pre 60 The pre 60 class is dead in most places (except maybe WA and country Victoria) and should perhaps become a non competitive parade class. This would hopefully attract older riders and their older bikes to do a series of perhaps three non racing rounds per meeting. This gives us a chance to see bikes that forged our sports history in action without the pressure of racing damaging old bikes or old riders.

Pre 65 should become Pre 68. For two or three years the Comission trialed the pre 68 class to allow such bikes as the CZ 360CZ twin pipe, BSA B44, Mk4 Rickman and single downtube Cheneys a chance to compete against pre 65 machines that are of more similar technology than pre 70. The experiment was a great success but for some reason the commission went back to the original pre 65 cutoff.

Pre 70 should remain but certain pre 75 class bikes that feature pre 70 technology (BSA B50, AJS Stormer etc) should be allowed to compete. The pre 70 class has a keen cult following but it could do with a bit of a spark up. I reckon allowing a few extra technologically sympathetic bikes in will work. Another view would be to perhaps move the cuttoff to pre 1971.

Pre 75 Remains as is. Why f*#k with something that's served us well for 21 years with no major eligibility dramas.

Pre 78 remains the same .Except that the suspension travel should increase to 10" and flat slide Lectron, EI, Gardner or Blue Magnum carbs be allowed.

Evo remains the same (See pre '75) The sports simplest class should remain as is with the exception that modern flat slide carbs should be disallowed.

Pre 85 Remain the same.

I haven't commented on pre 90 as it and pre 85 are a little out of my knowledge zone. As I said in an earlier post, the more we introduce newer cuttoff eras, the more our sport should be split into Pre 78 and olver and Evo and newer. The pre 78 classes however will need an injection of new blood for them to operate as a seperate entity in the current climate. By making some of the less popular classes more attractive to potential racers (see Budget Bikes thread) we can hopefully lure some racers from the newer classes to ride older bikes. Perhaps The seperation of the two sections of our sport may also encourage some cross polination, some pre 78 racers wanting compete in the newer divisions and visa versa.
There are those who oppose the pre 68 concept and I respect that they want to keep the pre 65 era pure, as we have with pre 75, but even the most positive of pre 65 stalwarts would have to admit that the class needs a boost of some sort.

[Graeme M]

That all sounds generally fine, although I can't comment on the Pre 68 thing. On the face of it, that makes sense. I re-read Rick Doughty's opinion and it sounds like a simple solution. In effect, we could use the 'Vintage' and 'Evolution' labels as they are well established and reflect an era. Then we'd apply sub-classes in each.

Vintage 1 is Pre 60 (and might perhaps be a demo class as noted)
Vintage 2 is Pre 68
Vintage 3 is Pre 70
Vintage 4 is Pre 75
Evolution 1 is Pre 78
Evolution 2 is 'true Evo' (ie the twin shock, drum brake thing, but with some better specs to deal with the sorts of issues Nathan S has previously raised)
Evolution 3 is Pre 85
Evolution 4 is Pre 90

Then  we could move on to the next 'Era', modern but old. What could that be called? Maybe Classic? Because after 1990, there are no major technological innovations that fundamentally change dirtbikes in the way that the 70s and 80s did. But they are still old bikes and their time will come.

So

Classic 1 is Pre 95
Classic 2 is Pre 00
and so on, with the obvious boundary that a Class doesn't come into being until the era it represents is more than 20 years in the past. On that basis, Evo 4 is a legitimate class from 2010. But Classic 1 (or whatever we name it it) cannot be formally endorsed until 2015.

This way, Vintage remains Vintage and forevermore reflects the era prior to long travel suspension and so on. Evo embraces the changes that the late 70s and 80s brought with suspension, braking and engine technology. And one day, Classic will come into being for all those young whippersnappers that suddenly find themselves old.

This is a nice, simple forumula that preserves the legacy of those who've already done the hard yards in establishing vintage MX, but offers us a way to move forward without getting caught up in the 'what is vintage' argument. And the overall name for anything old and dirty is VMX. Thus one could attend a VMX race meeting and compete in the V4 and E2 classes if one owned a 73 CR125 and a 1980 CR250.

Howzzat sound? Now, we just need to start finetuning the rules for Evo and decide on the Vintage 2 question of Pre 65 or Pre 68...

[Bamford#69]

Hi
Graeme the question re pre 65 or pre 68 has already been answered, the two year trail period was tried and The Historic Commissioner has  rejected pre 68 and ruled in favour of pre 65.
Game over .

[Nathan S]

I think I agree with Firko, although I confess to a lack of knowledge regarding the pre-65 vs pre 68, and I'd like to see the Evo rules cleared up.

What was the reasoning behind killing off the pre-68 class? I have a dim recollection of there being a comment along the lines of there being too few competitiors to make it a viable class - although IIRC they were talking about it being a stand-alone class, rather than an expansion of the pre-65 class.

If pre-65 becomes pre-68, will the 65~67 models that would be allowed in upset the class? Which existing bikes will be made uncompetitive?

Similarly, if pre-70 becomes pre-71, which bikes will suddenly be eligible, and will they be better than the Maico square-barrel and side-pipe CZ?

My un-educated, gut feeling is that if pre-65 was replaced with pre-68, you might lose too many punters from the pre-70 class . Perhaps you'd then 'need' to turn pre-70 into pre-71, simply to keep that class viable??

(Yes, less cranky today. CD6 road-trip begins tomorrow night. ).

[Bamford#69]

Hi ,
Graeme  , I agree , just leave the pre 65  the way it is ,  a five year class gap may not suit everybody , but a two or three year gap makes you wonder why they want the boundary to include or exclude.
A five year gap for the other classes is a fair line in the sand

[firko]

I'm a believer in the pre 65 class but it's just not growing. The reasons the pre 68 class wasn't introduced were never satisfactorally explained. I believe that by including the Mk4 Metisse, single downtubed Cheney, 360 CZ twin piper and BSA B44 the class would have been strengthened without, as Nathan wonders, taking anything away from the pre 70 class as most of the above bikes are not truly competitive in pre '70. Those bikes are using pre 65 technology but by a misfortune of birth were released after the pre 65 cutoff. If any of the bikes I mentioned showed any dominance over their genuine pre 65 brothers I'd definitely disallow them but I honestly believe that they are "spiritually" pre 65 bikes.

[Bamford#69]

Hi
You have just hit the nail on the head  "But for the misfortune of birth"
stop trying to work the rules around what you see as a misfortune of birth or design, somes bikes are disadvantaged for a  variety of reasons ,  some people are as well, you seem to want to change the rules to suit some bikes  instead of complaining about what a shitty hand of cards some are dealt,  just suck it up and get on with it.
you won't please everyone or every bike

[Nathan S]

So its kinda like the RT1 Yamaha being allowed in pre-70?

Jikov, to play the Devil's Advocate (I have no strong opinion on this):
Surely its better for the sport to get the maximum number of bikes out there? Those bikes rendered uncompetitive by the 1965 line in the sand, are far less likely to see the light of day, than if they were allowed into a class where they are competitive but not dominant.

[firko]

Surely its better for the sport to get the maximum number of bikes out there? Those bikes rendered uncompetitive by the 1965 line in the sand, are far less likely to see the light of day, than if they were allowed into a class where they are competitive but not dominant.

Hallelujah......Can't you see the point to all of this Michael? It's not to destroy your precious class, it's to strengthen it.

So its kinda like the RT1 Yamaha being allowed in pre-70?

Exactly Nathan. The pre 68 cutoff is to give bikes that had previously been uncompetitive in the pre 70 class a place where they belong in an engineering and spiritual sense. Just as the 1970 RT1 was deemed to be uncompetitive in pre 75 and allowed in pre 70, the twin pipe 360 CZ is uncompetitive against the pre 70 side piper version and deserves to race alongside its class legal 250 brother. Mk 4 Metisses using pre 65 engines have no mechanical or design dominance over the class legal Mk3...their differences are essentially cosmetic despite the frames being slightly different. The single downtubed Cheney offers little or no advantage over any other legal pre 65 frame. Compare a legal Mead GP Replica frame to the Cheney and you'll find the similarities far outweigh the differences. The B44 issue has been flogged to death but as its being a pre 65 bike in everything except its birthday the pre 68 gives it a place to live.

Don't pick on me over the pre 68 proposal Mikey. It's someone elses idea that we all saw work beautifully during its trial period. I was surprised when the comittee dropped the experiment and went back to a set of criteria that had proved to be failing. That's why they introduced the treial in the first place. Like I said earlier, we were never given a satisfactory explanation as to why the pre 68 idea was dropped.

[Suzukal]

I’m not sure about the rest of the states but in Victoria, we’ve had to combine all those classes into one Pre 70 class.  There’s no point in having Pre 60, 65, 70, when on race day you only get one rider on a Pre 65 & maybe two~three on a Pre 70 bike. The best we’ve seen would be six riders in that class.. If more riders turn up to make those classes viable, we’ll bring them back.
Those riders that do turn up at every race, even though they’ve been lumped into one class, their all easy going about it, they don’t bitch & moan, they just race and have fun.
There’s always the chance the fastest guy or the best bike won’t win as bikes stop running, riders fall off, you know, the usual stuff that happens….

[Brian Watson]

Keeping in mind guys that the pre 68 class was for 4 strokes ONLY..pre 68 was "split" into unit and pre unit construction also...This class was "trialled" to entice the B44's out ...over the "trial" period , I believe , there was not enough interest shown ( at a Nationals level) to encourage the continuation of the pre 68 class...I also note thru this forum and on the track that pre 65 is really alive and well....history has shown that the 65 CZ 360 twin port was well and truly above the other bikes available and won the World Championship..to allow that "type" of bike into pre 65 would make it a one horse race...(if you could find one to race)