maico LTR verses mk8 AND YZ360 B

[SAABCOMBI]

I have be surfing ebay.com is the states tonight, there are 2 maico 74 LTR on there for sale beautiful bikes, check the rear travel,  l have own a 74 LTR 250 and its being raced in QLD,, and the shocker were not that high, and as l was studing these 2 maicos, l started to think about my bultaco mk8, the mk8 where manufactured in 1974 same as the maico LTR,and they are eligible for pre 75 and the mk8 is not, the yamaha yz 250, 360 B is eligible for pre75 and the mk8 is not. why, why,  its bullshit.

[Nathan S]

Something to do with release dates/ designated year models?

Or maybe its just to discourage Bultacos and their owners, which has got to be for the best...

Seriously, the 1974.5 Maicos and YZ-B Yammies both have to be restricted back to 4" of rear travel, so what's the problem? I reckon that both bike 'should' be in pre-78 but the rules disagree with me, so they (can) run in pre-75 albeit restricted.

[BultacoMacca]

Something to do with release dates/ designated year models?
Or maybe its just to discourage Bultacos and their owners, which has got to be for the best...

Har har har........you're probably right though!
Can't give them Bully riders too much advantage.

[Brian Watson]

Come on Dave...you know the reason....the Bully is a 1975 designated model...nothing to do with when the bikes were made....the B and the 74.5 are just that 1974 model bikes....that is why they are "in"....on a personal note...I believe that the cut-off should be 1973 ...as it is in the UK...would get rid of the "transition era" bikes altogether...BUT..then what do you do with a two stroke AJS ...dumb poms where on the mark with LTR ....but years before there was a reason for it..

[firko]

Brian....At the risk of inciting another of our enjoyable philosophy discussions, I believe the Mk8 250 Pursang should be allowed in pre '75 as a flow on as long as the rear suspension is brought back to Mk7 specs by the fitting of a Mk7 swingarm or the moving back of the mounting hardware. The left foot gear change difference isn't an issue as many Mk7s have been converted anyway. The Mk8 360 shouldn't be allowed because the engine is vastly different from its Mk7 predecessor. The cases, cylinder, bore/stroke ratio and many more items are different enough to warrant its exclusion.

As for the YZB, I fought tooth and nail for it's exclusion back in the day but from the comfort of twenty years later, who gives a shit, I was wrong. The evil YZB hasn't shown any outstanding dominance during that time and nor has the '74 Maico or '74 KTM or any other bike with a supposed suspension advantage.

 Rather than advocating a pre '73 cutoff, we should be allowing more bikes into the fold by opening up the flow on regs for more bikes that are essentially the same as their '74 model predessors. What would you have done with the legitimate 7''x4'' bikes from 1974 in your pre '73 class Brian? Just throw 'em in pre '78 where they aren't up to the accepted 9" standard, creating an even bigger group of non competitive bikes parked in sheds?  But I forgot....That doesn't bother you blokes and your 'perfect'world. A world that ended on December 31 1973 it seems.

[GMC]

I'm afraid Dave's just trying to talk his bike up for resale value.
What happened to the Hodaka Dave?
I thought you would have been at Campbelltown with it but I didn't see you there.
You really need to keep your bikes long enough to ride them mate.

(Campbelltown photo's coming as soon as I find time to down size them.)

[jerry]

Call me cynical Geoff but I was thinking the same thing! Cheers Jerry

[firko]

Call me cynical Geoff but I was thinking the same thing! Cheers Jerry

Me too but I took old Brians bait anyway. Pre '73! What a wank.

[Marc.com]

The evil YZB hasn't shown any outstanding dominance during that time and nor has the '74 Maico or '74 KTM or any other bike with a supposed suspension advantage.

 Rather than advocating a pre '73 cutoff, we should be allowing more bikes into the fold by opening up the flow on regs for more bikes that are essentially the same as their '74 model predessors.

Yeah the YZB has no suspension advantage because the early monoshocks didn't.

Fitting new Ohlins to your pre 74 twin shock gives you hell of a lot more advantage.

Too true about the pre 73 BS, its pretty obvious which bikes are short travel and in the spirit of the event, be it 73/74/75 and which aern't. Follow on models like the 75 TM250 are not exactly going to wipe the floor with everything else, so why exclude them based on some anal minor differences.

[Brian Watson]

Mark, I couldn't agree with you more...we should look for "like" bikes to include...BUT....the cut-off at 1973 would stop all sorts of is it in ?..is it out??.. questions...Which is obvioulsy the reason the Poms took that course to sort things out..no advantage in any bike if they are all the same...( which is the premise that you built your initial "list on ) what I do enjoy Mark is you complete disdain for anyone elses ideas, opinions, thoughts...OH..any you colourful language..A cronic masturbator ...

[firko]

what I do enjoy Mark is you complete disdain for anyone elses ideas, opinions, thought

Come on Brian, we go back to the beginning of time in this sport and you know me better than that and also know quite well I love a good debate. I've listened to your and others from your side of politics reasons for this and reasons for that for years and while I agree on many of your points, some deserve the 'colorful description' as do many of my opinions in your eyes I'm sure. I hope you're not still cross with me because I dared to have a different opinion on the Nats split.

Mark, I couldn't agree with you more...we should look for "like" bikes to include...BUT....the cut-off at 1973 would stop all sorts of is it in ?..is it out??.. questions...Which is obvioulsy the reason the Poms took that course to sort things out..no advantage in any bike if they are all the same...( which is the premise that you built your initial "list on )

Brian, it's good that we agree on something but why do you contradict yourself here? First you claim it'd be good to include flow ons but then say that by making the cutoff 1973 it "would would stop all sorts of is it in ?..is it out??.. questions"..
I'm having trouble following your logic here. The suspension issues with certain pre '75 bikes was sorted years ago and hasn't been an issue to my knowledge for yonks. I can't remember the last suspension travel drama in pre '75 except for the non official rumblings about a certain Husky from your group at the Conondale Nats. Using the  Maico, YZb, KTM, AJS Stormer and others supposed  extra suspension travel as a reason to make the cutoff 1973 is in my opinion not a valid argument any more. As I said in my earlier post, a pre '73 cutoff would lessen the number of eligible bikes in a class that needs every bike it can get. If, like you hint at in your opening statement that you agree there should be 'flow ons' allowed, are you meaning just those from 1974 that fit the flow on from 1973 criteria or those 1975 bikes that are lost in the neverland of not being competitive in pre '78 or eligible for pre '75 such as the '75 TM250 and others too many to mention?

I realise that this is purely a hypothetical discussion but I'm curious as to how you'd implement a pre '73 cutoff and your justifications for it. Your post was a breath of fresh air to an otherwise dull day, I needed a good 'discussion' to clean out my post CD7 blues. Nothing personal taken by your little personal shot at me, my days of chronic masturbation are a few years past.

[jerry]

Firko, whatever you do dont give up! Tight lines Commish Gordon

[jerry]

Dave#46, Allbrid or whatever he calls himself must be sitting back pissing himself laughing knowing he caused this argument. Jerry

[Marc.com]

the cut-off at 1973 would stop all sorts of is it in ?..is it out??..

funny  I have never been asked if it is in or out ? must be a pre 73 pommy thing.

Anyways I think the whole thing should be about inclusion, maybe move the cut off date to pre 76, would let the short travel 75 bikes like my KX250 to run in a class the is better suited.

[Brian Watson]

Imagine that...!! Ithought we were have a meaningful animated discussion...all this time DA was talking up his latest aquisition!!..or is it item for disposal..??...No really ...nothing personal Mark... At Broadford....one of those suspect HVA's was asked to remove the shocks and demonstrate rear wheel travel...(with alloy arm in place)...haven't heard directly ..but would suspect it didn't make the travel limit... The model cut-off thing..well..just a personal opinion that would certainly reduce the amount of discussion on this forum..and would also reduce the amount of skull diggery with guys claiming to have bikes that are legit..when in fact are outside the cut-off.. (insert here C-A)..cheers Mark..