OzVMX Forum
Clubroom => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mick D on August 18, 2009, 04:29:26 pm
-
THIS IS AN OPINION POLL ONLY :)
This poll relates to Australian VMX only, and is an attemp to guage feelings in our country.
It would be appreciated if our international freinds refraimed from participating in the vote, therefore to hopefully gain a more truthfull opinion from the Australian VMX community.
The poll is set for a duration of 7 days.
Thankyou and kind regards, Mick.
-
Can't we have an option for retaining a suspension limit, but setting it at 10"?
-
Can't we have an option for retaining a suspension limit, but setting it at 10"?
Now your stressing me out Graeme??? OK, hold on, I will go around to the bottlo first and get some thinking ellixor.
I don't quite know how to do go about what you preposed ?
Were there any bikes comercially produced in 1977 that had more than 10"
-
Maybe, maybe not. Italian bikes of the period?
But the problem with 9" seems to be it does affect some bikes, so we need a limit that doesn't exclude anyone. But if we use the limit of OEM, then we stop anyone with an older Pre 78 (eg a 75 TM250) from upgrading for more travel to try to reach parity. Setting 10" or 11" doesn't limit anyone.
-
I didn't think as many people would prefer to leave things as is. I would like someone to give the reason why they would like to keep it this way (just curious).
I thought that keeping it as it came from the manufacture was a natural choice. The same as the 77 Monty being excluded. I had a 77 Monty that i was riding in pre 78 250. Was i in the wrong class? Why is the Monty excluded again?
-
Maybe, maybe not. Italian bikes of the period?
But the problem with 9" seems to be it does affect some bikes, so we need a limit that doesn't exclude anyone. But if we use the limit of OEM, then we stop anyone with an older Pre 78 (eg a 75 TM250) from upgrading for more travel to try to reach parity. Setting 10" or 11" doesn't limit anyone.
OK Graeme, I see your piont, an 1977 rm from end on a 75tm 250 perhaps. I really don't want to change the wording of the poll now that people have allready cast their vote.
Your piont perhaps could be looked at in sumissions to MA, or refined in a future poll, if anything ever comes from any of this?
-
Graeme - the wording is OK because this poll also extends to pre 75 suspension limits as I have to put a limiter into my YZB - so forget just pre 78 or 9 inches - if that is what the machine came with in its era then that should be allowed.
cheers
Rossco
-
I didn't think as many people would prefer to leave things as is. I would like someone to give the reason why they would like to keep it this way (just curious).
I thought that keeping it as it came from the manufacture was a natural choice. The same as the 77 Monty being excluded. I had a 77 Monty that i was riding in pre 78 250. Was i in the wrong class? Why is the Monty excluded again?
Hi Brad, I have always wondered why the "powers to be" excluded the 1977 Monty from the Australian VMX pre 78 class?
Were they available in Australia prior to January 1st 1978?
If so? Why have they been excluded?
A little help please?
Firko perhaps? I beleive you were motocross active at the time?
-
the existing rules already allow period correct parts but with a limit of 9" .About half of the bikes of the period had more than 9" travel so that doesn't make sense.
I don't want a situation where we only see stock bikes turning up to the races - period correct works or aftermarket parts are what can make different bikes so interesting to see.Talking to Guys about how they have restored and personally modified their pride and joy is one of the best parts of our scene.
The period correctness is my only concern. and yes I would raise the travel limit for pre78 .How much???? thats open for discussion.
Good idea, the poll - but the way its worded I didn't vote either way.
-
I didn't think as many people would prefer to leave things as is. I would like someone to give the reason why they would like to keep it this way (just curious).
I thought that keeping it as it came from the manufacture was a natural choice. The same as the 77 Monty being excluded. I had a 77 Monty that i was riding in pre 78 250. Was i in the wrong class? Why is the Monty excluded again?
Hi Brad, I have always wondered why the "powers to be" excluded the 1977 Monty from the Australian VMX pre 78 class?
Were they available in Australia prior to January 1st 1978?
If so? Why have they been excluded?
A little help please?
Firko perhaps? I beleive you were motocross active at the time?
Its not excluded its just singled out along with some other euro models to have its travel restricted.Strange that the GCR's dont mention YZ's which are also over 9"
-
Firko perhaps? I beleive you were motocross active at the time?
Not me...I retired from racing in 1975.
As far as your poll, I don't quite understand what you're asking. Are you referring purely to pre '78 or the sport in general? ??? ???
-
Firko perhaps? I beleive you were motocross active at the time?
Not me...I retired from racing in 1975.
As far as your poll, I don't quite understand what you're asking. Are you referring purely to pre '78 or the sport in general? ??? ???
Your opinion has never been retired from VMX Firko.
Where does it say anything about pre 78 in the wording of the poll?
Firko as usual, thank jeebus allah budha that theres only one of ya!
What are you talking about? the wording of the poll? or the wording of the post which exactly was;
Hi Brad, I have always wondered why the "powers to be" excluded the 1977 Monty from the Australian VMX pre 78 class?
Were they available in Australia prior to January 1st 1978?
If so? Why have they been excluded?
A little help please?
Firko perhaps? I beleive you were motocross active at the time?
So which bit are you having trouble with Firko? and where does it say anything about specific pre 78 in the poll? Mr OZ VMX?
Check in on when I get back home from dinner.
-
I think aftermarket travel extension kits eg Simons are Terry fork kits should be allowed, therefore home made extended damper rods should be allowed as there wont be any stripping of forks at scruitineering. if you want to fit longer damper rods off a model newer than the period your entering in, then you are just straight out cheating, i hope you can live with yourself! There should be no travel limitations, there is common sense here as its pretty self regualting as you can only extend the damper rods so much before you end up with not enough overlap and end up with a flexy chopper front end.
The inner and outer fork legs them selves, must be OEM from the class they are entered in. EG if its a 77 model bike, you can use any forks up to 77 models and no forks from 78 models onwards unless it can be proven the parts are exacly the same, which means same OEM part number.
All period aftermarket forks are allowed in their specific eras
No modern aftermarket forks allowed.
-
Question: To qualify in any given era a motorcycle (Voting closes: August 25, 2009, 04:29:26 PM)
needs to have been comercially available in that period. It shall have no more suspension travel that was stated by it's factory manufacturer in it's motocross model specifications. Any works or after market equipment is to be limited to the same specific
is to comply with existing rules only. No revision of existing rules is supportted
The above is what I was talking about.
Mr OZ VMX? Now I know you're taking the piss. Mark will do.
As a bloke who likes to modify my bikes and actually build bikes out of many different donor parts I can't really agree with the concept of the poll. Do you want bikes to all be factory stock?
As far as pre '78, keep the rules as is and increase the limit to 10". Any modification must be specific to the period using period major components. It already says that in the rulebook anyway. I think the Monty's disallowed simply because it has too much suspension but there may be another more complicated reason.
-
I had a 77 Monty that i was riding in pre 78 250. Was i in the wrong class? Why is the Monty excluded again?
You sold a good bike for the wrong reason. As far as I know it's only the length of the suspension that excludes it (as with a lot of Euro bikes of the same year I'm told). Modify the suspension to under the 9" rule and you're on your way.......
Get rid of all the external suspension adjustment froim bikes that would never have had it unless they're a period shock that did (none that I can think of.)
-
i think it should be a limit not limited to its standard form.
otherwise you only get every one riding the same model, and not the array you currently have.
As per above why if i owned a T75 M 250 counldnt i run shocks that picked up 7" travel or whatever it is in pre 78, you cant penilise earlier models or not so advanced models just becuase there are one or two other bikes that might have bigger factory specs closer to the cut period.
The rule should still be the cut off, as in if it was available in the period you can fit it , its not limited to brand or if it came on that bike. For example if you found a pre 75 cut off was moved to 5" or what ever to accomamdate the best travel at the time for Ross, then all the twin shcoks should have the same option to go 5" cause im sure you could have built or found shocks that legth in the day.
That also allows ridders to build mungrels using the best bits ie longer shock from somthing else that has it. Seems easy to police a "new" limit that brings in the longer travel for all with inthe same period, rather than policing manufacturer and all that specification stuff. Keep it simple
-
Ok. As above.
-
I must be going into dementia...I can't understand Freakys post either.
-
I think what he's trying to say is:
If your bike in 1976 had 7" of suspension and another brand had a shock (again in '76) that would give you 9" of suspension, then you can use it.
That's how I read it anyhow........ :-\
-
oh ::) I guess I should think about that for a little while. Thank you.
-
yep sorry got a few other screens open. ( and we still dont get spell check in the forum yet ) :D
YEs what im saying is jam the " must be as per manufactures spec. "
YOu just set a lenght for that period and thats it. if you find now you need to move the pre 75 and the pre 78 limits a little higher to say 5" or 10" make it so and then every one can build to that spec and not limit the less lucky models to have to deal with the hand they were dealt, but also allow the "cusp" models the ability to come in and play as they were made too.
The wording of poll above just sets out to artificially make it a one horse race for the one or tlywo bikes who current sit on the cusp of that period anyway, by disadvantages the earlier model by locking them into there initial specs ??? sounds stupid to me. its a class killer.
Seams simple to me - "Keep the field even with a set limit not set the bikes specs to how it left the production line
-
I had a 77 Monty that i was riding in pre 78 250. Was i in the wrong class? Why is the Monty excluded again?
You sold a good bike for the wrong reason. As far as I know it's only the length of the suspension that excludes it (as with a lot of Euro bikes of the same year I'm told). Modify the suspension to under the 9" rule and you're on your way.......
Get rid of all the external suspension adjustment froim bikes that would never have had it unless they're a period shock that did (none that I can think of.)
Okay just needed restricters. Just the conversation regarding a Maico was to put restricters in but then when a Monty is mentioned the word excluded is used.
I sold it 'cause it had a woeful front brake, hated the kickstarter and had a gearbox full of neutrals. It was also all new to me (vmx and 'different' bikes).
Good handling though.....
-
and as per my earlier comment - ie not just pre 78 - what about pre 75????
-
9'' 7'' 4'' that's the way it's been formulated and that's the way it will stay . Sorry Fellas your going no where with this one
THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO RE-INVENT THE WHEEL . too late it's already been done
-
That VB 250 was a good fun bike Brad, we never had any issues with false neutrals. The guy I sold it to loves him.
Chers,
K
-
yes i am happy to allow forks off another make as long as they are from the same period eg 74 Maico forks on a 74 suzuki in pre 75.
-
To exclude so many standard bikes is just dumb - I don't think that anyone really thinks that's the slightest bit reasonable, or good for the sport. Mick's suggested alternative is a great idea, but falls down as Graeme M (and others) have pointed out - I think that a lot of the votes for staying with 9" of travel are more a rejection of the problem with 'standard travel' than any love for 9" of travel.
I think the revised rule should be:
All bikes are limited to 9" of travel front and rear, or the standard travel, whichever is greater.
Its the best of both worlds - the guys with the stock YZ250/400s, Maicos, Montesas, etc etc etc can run, while still keeping the class different (in both suspension performance and appearance) to the Evo bikes.
-
That one works for me Nathan.
Cheers,
K