OzVMX Forum
Clubroom => General Discussion => Topic started by: lukeb1961 on May 31, 2009, 08:11:21 am
-
What do YOU mean when you say 'Vintage' dirt bike ?
-
I think a lot of blokes would say Pre '75, but for me it's simply air cooled, drum brakes and twin shocks. ;D
-
Shit. Here we go again..... :D. To me, it's simply bikes that are no longer the main-stream. You know. Your local shop just doesn't stock the bits any more and when you ask the kid behind the jump for such items he gets a glazed look in his eyes and then runs out the back giggling. As to how you fit these bikes into their respective eras, I'm fugged if I know.
But that's the easieat way to find out if it's VINTAGE. The giggle test...... ;)
-
VINTAGE to me... I'm with Tony, it's air cooled, twin shock, drum brakes. Say Pre 1980-ish. I used to believe it was only Pre 75, but I am relenting. That said, I love OLD dirtbikes, maybe I could call it CLASSIC? Pre 85. I don't agree that Pre 90 is CLASSIC or VINTAGE, but I wouldn't die in a ditch over that.
Of course, I realise that VINTAGE to a 30 year old would be a different thing...
-
I don't really like to use the word "vintage" as a technical definition - I use it to be a broad term for "old bikes".
My definition of "old bikes" fits pretty closely with AllThing414's definition.
Part of the reason that these topics get the "Shit, here we go again" response is because we acidentally get too uptight over words and their exact definition, and we lose sight of the big picture (as Graeme has obviously realised).
Look at the pre-90 debate, for example. A lot of the objections are along the lines of "But they're not vintage in the way that pre-75 bikes are", which is a fair argument.
But, like I said, its more an argument about words than about old dirt bikes - the words often confuse the real debate about which old dirt bikes have a place in the established old dirt bike movement.
NB: I'm not trying to re-ignite that discussion here, it was just an example that I used to demonstrate why we usually tie ourselves in knots when we have these discussions about what "vintage" means.
-
I see it as a reference to an era ( all bikes ) being the best of it's time ......twin shocks - drum brakes -air cooled
-
Pre 90.
My '85 model is 24 years old. A life time ago for me, back when i was eighteen.
As i have stated before , i love them all .
All depends how old you are to a degree or more so, your affection to particular bikes/ era's.
One rider i know is the same age as me and doesn't own a bike later than pre 75.
Another started racing in the 70's but prefers evo and later to race ( but has older bikes as well).
As i have said last time this question was asked, if we had different names for different eras, it wouldn't get up peoples noses as much if all older bikes were called vintage bikes. I think road race bikes have something like that.
-
Yep, exactly. I've always said that I think we should use some sort of naming convention, because I'd like to enshrine VINTAGE as Pre 75 (or Pre 78 at a stretch). I can't recall exactly, but Rick Doughty wrote an article on the McCook website that I think had some decent broad class names. Maybe VINTAGE (Pre 78), EVO (Pre 90) and POST EVO for anything later... Then we'd have divisions within that (ie the twinshock, drum brake 'classic' Evo, Pre 85 and Pre 90.
Anyhoo, the original question was what it means to me, and for me the significant period is 1975 to 1980-ish...
-
Always believed the unwritten rule was 30 years +, not like those modern Pre 85ers :D :-\
-
I'm with Tony and Graeme where until recent times I regarded pre 75 as real vintage. I now regard anything with twin shocks, air cooled and devoid of linkages as vintage. The later classes like pre '85 and pre 90 should be called something like 'Post Vintage' or something to seperate them from genuine vintage bikes.
And before I get accused of showing my bias against pre 85 and pre 90, I'll go on record and state that I genuinely believe that those classes have a perfect right to exist under the generic term of VMX. However, as much as I respect the right for the later classes to exist, I think it's time for them to become a seperate entity from the Evo and older divisions. There are a number of practical and cultural reasons for the seperation that I won't bother with on this particular thread but will say that, planning for the seperation should be started soon, before our sport becomes overcrowded with too many classes.
-
I'm not scared of being racist/bias ;D
Any dirt bike created before December 1974.
Like wine- full bodied ,good on the nose and matured. 8)
and yes the class's will have to be sorted sooner than later,especially for clubs running more than one/two era vmx bikes.
cheers
-
In dirttrack we refer to them as classics or moderns.........."classics" has a nice ring to it. Vintage,you tend to think of old british bikes.
To me,its the old bikes you had as a kid ( or wished you did ! )
Roger
-
For me pre'65 is the real vintage era. 1965-'70 are post classics, '70-'78 are classics and anything after is simply an old bike. I don't look at '85-90's models as being vintage by any stretch of the imagination, would be the same as calling an early Commodore or XD Falcon a vintage car ;)
-
You know, maybe it IS time to really get this issue sorted. IF we could agree on the format for VMX for the next decade, how would we go about changing it? I'd be keen to get the debate happening here, and to use 2009 as a time for pounding out the rules to satisfy most, and then see if we can implement for 2010 or 2011. It'd be good to set it in place for 2011 on. If anyone can tell me how we'd do it, I'll start a thread to do the actual discussion. I know it'd be painful, but challenging and ultimately worthwhile. I really want to enshrine VINTAGE and make Pre 85/Pre 90 a formal set of classes that have their own separate and unique identity.
-
, would be the same as calling an early Commodore or XD Falcon a vintage car ;)
I noticed in the newsagent this week, an XD Falcon on the cover of a Classic Car mag............ ::)
The car guys seem to work loosely around 30 years as being the benchmark for it being a Classic.
3 of my 4 cars are now "Historic" as of this year :D :D
-
Im with Firko, Vintage to me is pre 75, golden years would be pre 78 and Evo and Post classic is pre 85. Pre 90 well I am not touching that even if I do ride one!
It is the usual story it is hard to get numbers of the old(er) bikes to club meetings so that is where pre 85 and pre 90 come in. Having said that I think you will see a field of 40+ pre 85 500's at the nationals and of that, 20 really quick one's and that will be something to see and I am sure everone present will watch ;)
Shane
-
http://ozvmx.com/community/index.php?topic=4880.0
this has been discussed a bit already here aswelll
-
Anything old - like me lol!
The old bike guys used to regard
veteran - pre 1930's
vintage - 1930's to 1950's
classic - sort of a free range of 50's and 60's (so guess I'm classic)
To complicate things even more my 1974 Ducati 750SS is a classic - my head hurts !
Time frames have to shift just like some race classes but for my money I see nothing wrong with an all encompassing pre 85 is "vintage" and after that it's moderns cos we don't need all that veteran, vintage, classic crap. Old bikes are old bikes - why make it as complicated as am MA manual!
The 'KISS' principle
Dave Mac ;D
-
http://ozvmx.com/community/index.php?topic=1479.0
-
http://ozvmx.com/community/index.php?topic=1479.0
I will take it you mean to answer vintage me is "pre '75"
-
Watching the rapid changes in the media delivery arena gives me cause for concern. It seems that newspapers as we know them, are on the way out, for example. Hopefully not in my lifetime,however I wouldn't be surprised. This has me thinking of the 'definition the vintage'. I would like to believe that the passion we see today won't let the "Old" classes die out. I don't like to really admit it, but maybe, just maybe Pre-90 can be seen as the end of evolutionary line. Much happened in the development of bikes between 1980 and 1990,as it did between 1970 and 1980 etc, but for me anyway, a Pre-2000 class won't hold many surprises and besides that it just sounds plain wrong. Hopefully there is a hardy bunch of souls ,or sentimental old fools, to keep the flame alive - just for the sights,sounds and smells should be enough.
-
Anything up to evo, after that they just obsolete motocross bikes........and I'm from the pre85/90 era.
-
http://ozvmx.com/community/index.php?topic=1479.0
I will take it you mean to answer vintage me is "pre '75"
No,
I posted the link up so people can re-read what has been said on the subject, and also if some(posters') have changed their minds.
I personally like the idea of 'vintage' being ''Twin shocked'' motocross bikes. 2 shocks on a motocross bike is starting to become rare in these modern days. For what its worth, I think that Suzuki started off the modern suspension system as we know it today with the 1981 RM's, which made 2 shocks dated over-night. Thus, helping Twin-shocked bikes being able to take on the word, "Vintage", under the banner of Vintage Moto-X.
I'm not saying that all the era's in the twin-shocked periods' are vintage bikes, as I believe what 'Doc' has written in this thread about the different periods within the twin-shock period, except that I would say that the twin-shocked Evo class is "Modern-Vintage". There by show casing the history of moto-cross racing with twin shocks.
You know, maybe it IS time to really get this issue sorted. IF we could agree on the format for VMX for the next decade, how would we go about changing it? I'd be keen to get the debate happening here, and to use 2009 as a time for pounding out the rules to satisfy most, and then see if we can implement for 2010 or 2011. It'd be good to set it in place for 2011 on. If anyone can tell me how we'd do it, I'll start a thread to do the actual discussion. I know it'd be painful, but challenging and ultimately worthwhile. I really want to enshrine VINTAGE and make Pre 85/Pre 90 a formal set of classes that have their own separate and unique identity.
I agree with what Graeme M is saying about the different types/styles of motocross bikes needing definitive periods all under the one name of "Historic Motocross", but broken up into different periods, which would give the linkage suspension bikes a chance to name their own racing/events/meetings/clubs etc, but all under the one big name "Historic Motocross".
The twinshock bikes could race as 'Historic Motocross; Vintage MX' bikes
and the Linkage bikes could race as 'Historic Motocross; Evolution MX' bikes
Both types of racing would have classes within their periods and of cause the Evolution MX could include Pre90/95 classes like "1st Generation linkage", "2nd Generation Linkage" and what ever classes they feel are needed.
-
we had this discussion in the early 90`s when pre80 wanted more rides, and the meeting got to big for pre75 meeting, and pre 80 had to go on their own and they call themselves viper. pre 90, pre 84 pre80 should be viper,It would be great to cater for all on one day.. but their is not enought daylight. I beleive the cut of dates are all wrong. even though l had a lot to do with the eligiblty rules. But that is a can of worms.
-
.
Like wine- full bodied ,good on the nose and matured. 8)
I am shattered,you have just described me :o
so it is true,I am an old vintage fart ;)
-
road racing pre 62 classic bikes in the early 80s vintage was pre war and older.now i think all bikes pre 65 as vintage and after that to be classic. in our dirt track races we have pre 70 and also (classic &evo combined)
cheers
jim
-
Sorry mate, their is vetern, vintage, classic, post classic, new era, pre war, this list goes on, and viper. old bikes new bikes, in another 10 years you young fellow will want to add 2000 models.
-
mmm..just thinking into the future a little but spare a thought for those wishing to create a pre 2005 class. It would have a huge following but sadly there'll be few participants due to the influx of Chinese cheapies that are flat out lasting 20 weeks let alone 20 years!! :D I somehow doubt the Chinese quality will ever improve to the standard of the Jap and Euro bikes but if it did it would price itself out of the market. Why change something that's selling by the squillion even if it is rubbish! :D
-
Your right doc, it would be a nightmare.
-
I reckon vintage stuff is the really old gear, like Pre-65. Pre-78 back would be Classic to me.
Racing-wise, I'd say its pretty right down here in Vic. The tracks pretty much dictate which series you ride.
VCM caters strongly for everything Pre-78 with a stronger focus on the natural terrain stuff.
VIPER is for everything from Pre-78 to Pre-90, majority of tracks are modern style with lots of jumps & berms. Probably a bit too harsh for the older bikes.
One thing I reckon VIPER should do is shelve the modern class & replace it with 2-stroke-only. This would give the Pre-90 guys an extra ride, & let some guys with more modern 2-strokes in the shed (ie, 90s models) have a ride too. I realise the modern class boosts the takings for the day, but I'd hazard a guess & say this alternative would be really popular. Just a thought...
-
Viper has a Modern class at their meetings???? Tell me it ain't so
-
It is so and most people seem happy with it. When you're getting a club to lay on a track (ala prepare track), do all the administration, supply flaggies and so on, they appreciate it a whole lot more if their kids can have a blast as well. It also gives these kids exposure to what we do and believe it or not, some of the little buggers respect what we do. Especially when they see an entire grid of pre85/ Evo big bores leave the gate!
There's the added bonus of sending them out first in practise on a wet day to get all the grease off the surface. :D
I guess it's just another thing we're doing right in Victoria......
-
Viper has a Modern class at their meetings???? Tell me it ain't so
I believe this has always been the case, and for the reasons 414 pointed out, it's a valid call.
It is so and most people seem happy with it. When you're getting a club to lay on a track (ala prepare as well), do all the administration, supply flaggies and so on, they appreciate it a whole lot more if their kids can have a blast as well. It also gives these kids exposure to what we do and believe it or not, some of the little buggers respect what we do. Especially when they see an entire grid of pre85/ Evo big bores leave the gate!
I guess it's just another thing we're doing right in Victoria......
Good point. I don't have a problem with the moderns per-se, although I do like the idea of a dedicated 2-stroke class with no era restrictions. Maybe just an extra class....
-
Hi
I agree with Graeme M and even "The Grand Poobah of Firkoland" , and sooner or later there will need to be a division for a variety of reasons , track suitabilty will be the first one , for me the cut off will be pre 75 or pre 78 because of the suspension limitations and track conditions ,.
dont let this be an us and them argument , we will all ride vintage bikes, hopefully just on more suitable tracks , I think its safe to say Evos pre85,pre90 onward have the suspension capable of running on any motocross track in Aust, maybe pre 78 as well ,
-
Viper has a Modern class at their meetings?
I've always understood it as being a concession to the host club (as already pointed out).
It's also a small part of the schedule, they only have three races out of 30+ races on the day. Pre 90 bikes are also allowed to compete in this class.
Tex
-
This is the era that l would like to see put inplace for our cut off dates, they would all have 4 year manufacturing, take out flow on models, if it was manufactured in that year it stays in that era. for example, at present A 1964 greeves mark 1 races in pre 65, if a 1966 model to 67 greeves is eligible to be ridden in pre 65, new way, this would stop flow on models.
pre 78 -77 model to 1974
pre 74 - 73 models to 1970
pre 70 - 69 models to 1966
65 era to 1962 models only
pre 62 - 1961 model onwards.
So what do you think of that.
-
pre 78 -77 model to 1974
pre 74 - 73 models to 1970
pre 70 - 69 models to 1966
65 era to 1962 models only
pre 62 - 1961 model onwards.
nearly --just a bees dick out somewhere-can't quiet see it. 8)
can you make the year groups larger or reshuffle ?,because for the future classing your are going to have go onto 2020 models as well. :P
cheers
-
So you haven`t gave me any reason why these era wouldn`t work. I am not interested in 2020.
A bees dick out.???????
-
Definately not saying it wouldn't work, just has to be put to those that would and do write up the rule book.
der I've got it now.I was reading it the wrong way. ::) sorry.
so it will read----------- pre 78 class would include 77 models to 74........I like it 8)
Interpretations see :-\
bees dick is saying for a very small thing.
Is anyone else going to comment ???
cheers
-
Good one walter, that was funny.
-
The biggest drama is that you'll put everyone with a 1974 model bike, up against the 76 and 77 bikes. This is pointless and unfair (because everyone has bought/built their bikes to fit the current year cut-offs).
What's the point of stopping flow-on models? If its identical/can easily be made identical to an eligible bike, then what is achieved by forcing it into a newer era class? And again, you'd upset a lot of people who bought 'flow-on' bikes because they were legal for a particular era.
-
Ok cool.
Next suggestion anyone :P
cheers
-
Yes, that is true, a 74 model would still be competive up against a 77 model, and that would depend on the track, like a nice undulating grass track, both would be equal
-
my bike transporter ;D ;D
-
Yes, that is true, a 74 model would still be competive up against a 77 model, and that would depend on the track, like a nice undulating grass track, both would be equal
You're kidding, right?
A 1975 YZ125C will blow the doors off of a 1974 YZ125A (for example). Even on a smooth track, the later bike has more gears, better brakes, more/better power - there's no contest. And the 1977 D model is significantly quicker than the C....
As the owner of all of these bikes, I'm talking from experience.
Even a relatively unchanged 77 CR125 is significantly better than the 74 version.
None of which is to say that a good rider on the older bike wouldn't be faster than an average rider on the newer bike, but c'mon....
Why the desrie to seperate the 74 models out from the class that they've been in since the dawn of time, and that is universally accepted?
Walter: :D
-
Are we making classes for bike, or classes for riders?
-
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).
-
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?
-
Holeshots New model ford ute, nice wood grain,
-
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.
-
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...
-
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 .
-
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. :) ).
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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….
-
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) :)
-
Brian, the pre 65 class is alive and well on your side of the island but over here where there are more choices for your racing buck, the punters are taking an easier route to their racing. Pre 65 is too hard for them but I reckon if the class was made to be more accessible we'd get far more starters. The response we've had to Mainlines Budget Bikes post alone is encouraging when you show potential racers that there are alternatives to the 12k bikes.
I share your view on the twin pipe 360. I rode Bob Vourmards in practice at Condo a few years ago and I was surprised just how damn quick it was. However, we can't knock back a bike just because it won a world title. A lot of other brands won world titles and we don't discriminate against them. I think the Twin port CZ is a non issue anyway as you yourself said "...if you could find one to race"..which is so true. If I had one I doubt I'd race it for fear of breaking some unobtainable gizmo.
-
How about a good run down on exactly how many pre 65 bikes front the grid at any given meeting.
I am sure that many reading these posts would find the figures interesting - one way or the other.
While we are here - pre 70 numbers would be interesting too !
Michael - you seem to know a lot about racing in pre 65 so tell us from you point of view how many guys you rack up with at any given meeting (and not just the Nats which while having slightly more prestigious plastic on offer it's doesn't represent what happens "On any Sunday"
In anticipation pre 65 guys
Dave Mac :D
-
I only know of one Pre 65 turning up for VMX in NSW although Crawford river classic had around 10 pre 70 which is a fair increase for VMX, the DT nationals results 2008 were pretty poor turnout, couldnt run championship classes for pre 60, pre 65 or pre 68 and had to combine the pre 70 250 in with pre 70 opens :-\
2008 AUST. CLASSIC D/TCHAMPIONSHIPS
Pre 1960 All Powers
No Competitor Rd.1 Rd.2 Rd.3 Rd.4 Rd. 5 Total
58 Brian Kelleher 20 20 20 22 22 104
23 Graham Roberts 25 25 25 dns 25 100
211 David Tanner 22 22 22 25 91
Pre 1965 All Powers
92 Darrell Elliott 25 25 25 25 25 125
18 Mark Austin 22 20 20 20 18 100
857 David Harrison 20 18 18 18 20 94
23 Graham Roberts 22 22 22 22 88
69 Mick Jones 16 16
0
Pre 1968 4 Stroke
92 Darrell Elliott 25 25 25 25 25 125
39 Kevin Crossey 22 22 22 20 20 106
23 Graham Roberts 20 dnf 22 22 64
0
0
Pre 1970 All Powers Championship
52 Peter Lee 25 25 25 25 25 125
4 Matthew Perlowski 22 22 22 20 20 106
400 Ross Merrick 20 18 18 18 18 92
92 Darrell Elliott 20 20 22 22 84
58 Brian Kelleher 18 15 16 15 15 79
173 Neville Shepheard 16 13 13 14 16 72
2 Noel Lewis 15 14 14 13 14 70
245 Gerard Harrison 14 16 15 16 dns 61
175 Luke Shepheard 13 11 11 11 13 59
857 David Harrison 11 12 12 12 12 59
39 Kevin Crossey 12 10 10 10 11 53
-
Maybe its time for a group of people to get off there butts and create a pre 65 &/or pre 68 VMX club. ;D
Calling it
Vintage 1
Vintage 2 loses the pre name/identity big time. :(
I believe people would associate it as RR.
cheers
-
the classic scramble club victoria was to be a pre 70 club, but changed our mines. but their are plenty of pre65, 60 and pre70 out their, just need to get these people to roll them out of there sheds to a meeting, that is the hard part. I think that a lot of x-riders or riders that like these bikes just don`t want to race them anymore, if it was a free ride every month that may be the answer.
-
Let look at starting right here on this forum-
Who on this forum has a pre 65 or pre 68 and doesn't ride it on a club day or any day ??????
Ask your non forum mates why they don't ?????
Its no use bashing around here on this forum,when the people who own them are not even on this forum. :-\
Flogging a dead horse or not???
I believe Classic Dirt is one of the main places to start PR work to create the pre 65 and Pre 68 club/identity..You can only but try :o
What is your definition of VINTAGE looks like its pre68 & pre 65 so the topic leads ::)
cheers
-
I have just sold my Husqvarna 67 which is eligible for pre 65 to South Australia, that will be used, l will be building another to run next year. l started racing in 1972 , but l do prefar pre 68 to 1960 bikes, it is the true vintage era. I have owned 9 pre 65 bikes, sold them on to help build up the numbers and where are they now, sleeping in sheds.
-
That is great news walter, it is over due, you guy`s are not fare from Harrow, l heard that the original Keith race track was starting up. I would like to see a lot more spark that could come back into vintage meetings. Sick of trophies, more prices like gloves tyres, oil to give away, l did that when l ran race meetings, got the bike shops, other different business to donate, the rider and kids where very happy.
-
To me, Vintage is what you want it to be
-
That is true words.
-
OLDYZMAN, 30 YEARS PLUS, WHAT DO YOU MEAN
-
definition of vintage....my ex ;)
-
I'm with Rosco 30 years plus....
OLDYZMAN
OLDYZMAN, 30 YEARS PLUS, WHAT DO YOU MEAN
30 years from the end of the year has always been known as the historical year for vintage, it is the same rule for cars & road bikes
Classics have aways been 25 years,
They are both rules that have been in force since Fred Flintstone was a boy. ;)
-
I have some , but do not have the time to use them. that does not mean I am not interested in the class.
Wasp,Maybe enter it in a class for the Nats 8)
I have just sold my Husqvarna 67 which is eligible for pre 65 to South Australia, that will be used, l will be building another to run next year. l started racing in 1972 , but l do prefar pre 68 to 1960 bikes, it is the true vintage era. I have owned 9 pre 65 bikes, sold them on to help build up the numbers and where are they now, sleeping in sheds.
Stop selling them and rent them ;) 8)
cheers
-
Hey Luke, thats a great question that has obviously stirred up a bit of interest. What is your definition of Vintage.
-
Hey Luke, thats a great question that has obviously stirred up a bit of interest. What is your definition of Vintage.
Good question col, over to you luke
-
Ok on the technical side non of the 60 - 70-80-90's bikes are vintage, the term Vintage is for cars/Bikes Made between 1919 - 1930 that is the tue definition. So a 1928 Douglas DT Side tracker is a true vintage dirtbike by defenition.
How ever the Motor Cross bikes haven't been around that long, and the early examples are road bikes moded to use off road and are from european back ground, But are they a true MX bike??? Or is MX bike refer to a purpose built bike which was designed to go off road before it was made??
There is no such thing as a chinese or Jap. vintage car, nor would you call a FJ Holden Vintage.
Classic in the true meaning is a car/Bike built 1931-1948 so where does that leave everything else??
Maybe we need to make up a new Cat., all the stuff in between fits into like retro 1948-1985???
Otherwise everything 1930 - to 25years or older is a classic and that is alot of stuff and leaves it to open.
We need to keep it clean and streamlined as once all this stuff is a 100years old what will it be?
Nutz
-
the true meaning of vintage is 'BEST' of its type or year and does not necesarily define a period time wise. no japanese vintage timewise? i would like to know [really, not sarcastically]what has suzuki been manufacturing in motorised vehicles since 1909? cheers wally.
-
Suzuki didn't make it's first motorised bike till 1952 and before that was into Loom Works machinery.
http://www.globalsuzuki.com/corp_info/history/index.html
Check this link out for the timeline and history.
So I think you may have your wires crossed.
-
Suzuki did make a number of prototype cars in 1939. 4-cyl 750cc things. The war stopped them putting it into production. The Power Free and Diamond Free bikes of 1952 were very basic/simple bicycle things, that nevertheless sold in large numbers (53,000 per year!). The Colleda of 1954 was their first real motorbike.
The Jeff Clew book SUZUKI was an exhaustive history up 'till 1979.
-
Hey Luke, thats a great question that has obviously stirred up a bit of interest. What is your definition of Vintage.
Ahh.. that was the discussion at work that triggered this question to you lot! My personal definition of Vintage Dirt Bike is very firm and clear. The era when I was a teenager and lusted after these things. Specifically, 1976-1980. Everything before then is 'ancient', and anything after that is 'modern' and those crazy young kids ride those single-shock weird things.
Feel absolutely free to laugh or deride. But that was MY era and MY definition of cool 'vintage' dirt bike. You OLD guys who are into pre-75 are unfathomable ;D Does the whole thing need to be reclassified and renamed? ABSOLUTELY. "vintage" was coined back in the late 1930's for chrissake! There is NO problem with renaming/classifying things, so long as it makes sense and rids us of the ambiguity.
Graeme M's proposal below sounds to me to be very close to the mark.
-
I agree make up a new class for all things that don't fall into the date critera, You have to have some method. Other wise the whole thing gets lost and is a joke.
Vintage was also never got canned in the late 1930's it still around today Just ask your insurance company. I have a 1929 A Ford and it is a vintage car, the club I belong to is a Vintage Car Club which is any car from 1919-1930 even asked some of the old boys did it ever get canned last night at a club event and these guys are 80-90 and they said the vintage is by date.
If you don't go by date or type ect. there is no use classing anything, Just make it Good/Bad/Diffrent/Don't Bother.
after reading this thread my company toyota prius is a vintage car as it is the best type of it's era.??
Now lets go to the other theory that it was you wanted when you were a teenager ect. well that means a 1908 Whippet is nothing as everyone who wanted one when they were a teen are long gone??
I guess it really comes down to how do you want class it Age/Date or Type, Country of orgin? Rather than saying what do you call vintage?? there has to be some method otherwise the whole thing means nothing at all.
Nutz
-
Just did a quick search on the net for definitions and I really think what is below sums it up for most of us rather than having three hundred different classes.
I'm sure that most of us enjoy a wine or three so I have left the whole definition intact. definition #4 pretty well sums up our sport / hobby I reckon so no further bullshit required other than setting up age classes. All the bikes can be vintage be they motocross trials or enduro.
This is the web based Collins dictionary definition;
vintage (vintages plural )
1 n-count The vintage of a good quality wine is the year and place that it was made before being stored to improve it. You can also use vintage to refer to the wine that was made in a certain year.
eg This wine is from one of the two best vintages of the decade in this region...
2 adj Vintage wine is good quality wine that has been stored for several years in order to improve its quality.
ADJ n
eg If you can buy only one case at auction, it should be vintage port.
3 adj Vintage cars or aeroplanes are old but are admired because they are considered to be the best of their kind.
ADJ n
eg The museum will have a permanent exhibition of 60 vintage cars.
4 adj You can use vintage to describe something which is the best and most typical of its kind.
usu ADJ n
eg This is vintage comedy at its best.
Sourced - English Collins Dictionary - English Definition & Thesaurus
The admired part would be up to the owners I guess, lol. We know some bikes are complete shitboxes but they are included in fairness to the broader appeal they have eg Honda's, Yamaha's, Suzuki's and Kawasaki's lol !!!
Simple ain't it !!!
Dave Mac :D
-
looks like you have been drinking the port ,how many bottles do you have left in the case ::)