Pre 90/Pre 95 in Classic MX. An idea whose time has come?

[Graeme M]

I'm not saying that any club has to 'implement' an Evo 2 class Alison. I am saying that by creating such a thing, we can right now model the course of the sport's evolution. And when it's time comes, Evo 2 will already be a class that can be brought into the light of day.

The WA VMX club couldn't care less that there's an Evo 2 or New Era class in the MoMS, they'll continue to race Vintage.

But VIPER may like to have a couple of Evo 2 classes, eh?

[AjayVMX]

Regardless of whatever has happened in the past  or may happen in the future.... the actual definition of something that is a "classic" is something that is at least 20 years old.

That may open the door to pre-90, but pre-95 is just plain fantasy. 

[firko]

I'd be interested to see how pre-XX naysayers try to derail sensible discussion on this - but am sure it will happen.

So, does this mean that because the "pre.xx naysayers" have an opinion that differs to yours Nathan, it's therefore not sensible or well thought out?

Having said that I think that Graeme's raised some interesting ideas. I think one thing that most of us would agree on is that the system does need a bit of a tweak. One of my main concerns besides my belief that the introduction of new classes is coming on too quickly is that the introduction of pre 90 adds to an already overloaded number of era divisions.
Here's my contribution.

* Pre 70.....absorbing pre 65 but allowing for a 4t/2t split in both 250 and 500 classes. That would put bikes such as the BSA B44, Mk4 Metisse, Hindall Triumph and BSA, 450 Ducati and other circa '68-70 era bikes of similar concept to compete with the regular pre 65 tackle.

*Pre '75. Remains the same but is opened up to accept some previously disallowed post '74 bikes with traditional 7" and 4" suspension travel in a bid to make the class more accessible.

*Pre '78. I'm not 100% sure this division is warranted in its current form if it continues to flounder. I understand the valid reasons for its existence but it hasn't been a big hit with punters. Perhaps it needs some more surgery, perhaps bringing the suspension limits up to 10" and 10".

*No more Evo. Absorb the bikes into either pre '78 or pre '85.

* Pre '85 As it stands.

*Pre '95. To be introduced in 2012. Perhaps run as a support class at modern meetings which has the double whammy benefit of keeping the vintage program less cluttered and 2: Presenting the "vintage" option to a new audience.

[Nathan S]

Guys, pre-90 and pre-95 or even double overhead cam, fuel injected 4 stroke classes (work out which year that is) are NOT what VMX is about.

Says who? Everyone has their own opinion on this, and "because I say so" doesn't suddenly change my mind. There's dozens of people who will argue even less liberal definitions than your's...
If nothing else, you're completely ignoring the indisputable fact that people will always want to race old bikes that they identify with/find interesting, and do so amongst their peers. As Graeme is trying to point out, this suggestion allows for that, without worrying about the definition of VMX or similar.

The reality of the situation is that the era from around 1965 through to 1985 is derived from the great technological change that occured in the design of the motorcycles during that era and THAT is what makes it so easy to define that era as VMX.

If that's what it was about, then the cut-off should be the 1983 (when the KXes first got front discs & some KTMs got USD forks) or 1986 (when the KXes got a rear disc). There's no justification for 1984 being The End of significant bike development. Therefore your assertion that VMX (or old dirt bikes or whatever) is specifically defined by those years is clearly incorrect.

Since 1985, despite what anyone may claim, bike design has NOT progressed in the same kinds of leaps an bounds that it did in 1965-1985.

The only aspect of bike design that quickly rendered previous designs obsolete was LTR - and even then, it took five years to go from 4" of rear travel to 12" - each one of those years saw bikes with more travel, but it was still a incremental process, just like everything else before and since.

The fact that a bike like a KX500 remained competitive and virtually unchanged from 1988 through to 2003 is a blatent example of this fact.  Indeed if open class 2 strokes were still the premier class in MX, it is unlikely that they would STILL have changed much today.

You've been drinking, right? Even by the early 1990s, the under-developed 500s were way behind their 250 siblings despite the extra grunt. Why do people pay so much money for Service Hondas, if the newer bits make no difference?

Another critical area of difference between the VMX era and post 1985 is that there was a huge change in the manufacturing supremacy during the 1965-1985 period.  We went from British supremacy through European diversity (anyone who has witnessed Mark Holloway's 1974 125cc MX bike collecion can attest to the diversity of manufacturers in 1974) to Japanese dominance.  After 1985, not a lot has changed... 

The death of Maico, the arrival of Aprillia, TM, Sherco & GasGas, KTM as a big player, Husqvarna moving to Italy, Husqvarna becoming a mainstream player, BMW's serious dirt bikes, the short-lived Suzuki-Kawasaki alliance, Cannondale, ATK, Husaberg, the rise and fall of VOR/Vertamati, the influx of Chinese bikes, the arrival on non-rubbish Chinese bikes... Yeah, nothing happening at all.

[Nathan S]

So, does this mean that because the "pre.xx naysayers" have an opinion that differs to yours Nathan, it's therefore not sensible or well thought out?

I didn't say that.

When they're red herrings thrown in, then I have to consider them to be shenanigans.
Graeme's suggestion here is about how we can appease all interested parties - seperate the beloved VMX name from the new-fangled stuff, without dismissing the ideas and enthusiasm of the newer-but-still-old-bike lovers.
The irrelevant stuff about what exactly defines "vintage" betrays a lack of imagination and a lack of ability to understand the other side of the argument.

Looked at with a tiny bit of understanding, Graeme's suggestions provide the pre-XX* naysayers with the perfect opportunity to preserve their favourite era without the supposed dramas that newer era bikes do/would bring. But instead we get the blinkered, selfish "Its like this because I say so and everything else can go and get f$%ked".

I mean, Alistair doesn't even appear to know what year it is... Twice he's brought up "Classic" as being 20 years or older, and then tried to use it to dismiss the possibility of racing bikes that are/are about to be twenty years old. That's what I was talking about "Derailing sensible discussion".
Ditto the shit in the pre-95 thread. If its really such a dumb idea, then its easy to shoot down with coherent, rational arguments. Instead we get the internet equivilant of yelling "nah nah nah nah" with our eyes screwed up and our fingers in our ears.

I do agree with the way you're thinking in the rest of your post - I don't particularly agree with most of your suggestions, but the willingness to look at options without being locked into the same old way of thinking.

*NB: XX could be any number - even 70...

[ted]

No more EVO Firko......lets just piss off the most supported race and let 3 pre 75 bikes have a go.
That`ll get them thru the gates

Take Shaun`s tip and get out to a meet soon

[Nathan S]

Nathan - whilst I am aware you will not agree and I know you will find some way of picking holes in this point - the "head in the sand" VMX fraternity in WA seem to get it right as far as bikes and rider numbers go - the formula can be made to work.

The WA model is really interesting (and good!), but the big thing is that your lot never let the genie out of the bottle.
Over here, we didn't dogmatically build pre-75 only. We had a strong pre-75 mainstay club (Penrith), and then HEAVEN was formed to pick up the newer eras. When Penrith withered on the vine, iIt somehow became HEAVEN's job to nurture pre-75 despite the club's fundamental focus on newer eras. Nobody has been willing to step up and be a strong advocate/organiser for pre-75 - instead, there's been a lot of stones chucked at HEAVEN for not selling their soul to support the pre-75 cause.

(FWIW: HEAVEN actually does a very good job of being all things to all people, but the reality is that no club can possibly do everything perfectly, particularly with so many stones raining down... If the committee focusses its efforts on one particular era, then they get bitched at for neglecting the others. Therefore the club is forever doomed to continued criticism of not putting enough effort into the sport as a whole, which is completely unfair to the people who put in the time and effort to making the club run... It's a viscious cycle that takes its toll on the people who least deserve to pay it.)

[firko]

You know what? At 11.40 pm tonight it finally dawned on me that I'm arguing merely for the sake of arguing. The sad reality of all of this pre 95 nonsense is that the sport I've put the last 25 years into is changing into something that I have no passion for. I've been trying to convince myself that I really cared by involving myself into the pre 90/95 discussion with what I still firmly believe are valid concerns but to be really truthful....I don't particularly care any more.

[worms]

assumptions! it might reflect a state but not the whole country!

, pre75, pre 78 , evo, pre85 were full grid class's at Conondale 2008, so yeah let's combine them and give more time back to pre 65 and watch 6 bikes race.

everybody should learn to live within the GCR's as set out and not these pointless debates on a forum, if you have an idea, take to your club and stop your bitching about why everybody has to agree with your ideas.

Nathan, your not an authority on VMX, how long have you been envolved in the sport and why do you think your voice carries more wieght than others,

A- your on a committee for VMX, and run many race meetings.
B- youve held the role of President for several years and have grass roots feel for the sport.
C- your a steward or clerk or scrutineer for VMX and converse with fellow riders and not just your circle of mates, to determine your position.
D- youve been a part of the sport for years and just like having a whinge.
E- it's a generation thing, why cant "I" have this.

really, i think its a generation thing and you lack respect for the sport, otherwise you would be glad, just to be a part of it.

come back in about 2020 for pre 95, we will all be dead and youve might of turned 40, then bring in your pre 95.

over and out.

the dumb old bastard Worms, yes i was behind the introduction of PRE85 and submitted the proposal to MA to be included to the GCR's.

[TM BILL]

Quote from nathan S

Instead we get the internet equivilant of yelling "nah nah nah nah" with our eyes screwed up and our fingers in our ears.

 

[mainline]

I reckon clubs should think ahead and look at introducing a pre 2010 class.

The main arguments I've seen for pre95 are that

1 - someone rode one in their youth and has fond memories of them
2 - they're technologically outdated

Pre 2010 fits both these parameters.

Firstly, no top class rider worth his/her salt would be seen dead on a 2009 model bike, and the factories have certainly made major improvements in the last year (just ask them)

Secondly, it's getting to the end of the racing season, time to reflect. There'll certainly be riders out there looking at the tired 2009 practice bike at the back of the garage and wistfully thinking about the 'good old days'

[Graeme M]

I don't follow how everyone assumes that having a plan for the future somehow means the end of today. If the argument is that vintage motocross ends in 1985, well... I think you've just ensured the sport will one day wither and die.

Maybe a few tattoo wearing kids will want to keep racing old Brit iron, but they aren't doing it for the reason VMX came about.

And I'll bet you that VMX came about partly for these reasons:

1 - someone rode one in their youth and has fond memories of them
2 - they're technologically outdated

Look, what I am saying is that you define your classes NOW, for those in the FUTURE. No-one HAS to suddenly include New Era or Evo 2 in their program. Why on earth would they?

Perhaps we add a 'sunrise' clause as to when the new classes become valid, like Firko suggests. Overall, his suggestions seem to fit with what I am proposing, so I can see the opportunity for further discussion to really flesh this out.

No-one need fear the introduction of Pre 95 at the Nats anytime soon from such a proposal. Don't you see that?

Or do you really believe it's your job to prevent the guys of 2015 hving any choice about vintage MX because it's only Pre 85 bikes?

[Graeme M]

My vision here is to protect the spirit and meaning as well as the actual parameters of VINTAGE MOTOCROSS, laregly as the founders designed it.

Within the framework of a sport called Classic Motocross so that future riders can take advantage of it and race their old bikes, when that time comes.

And, once we have this framework, there is no more wailing and gnashing of teeth over what constitutes a classix mx bike. No-one can argue that Vintage MX is this or that - it's what it is and always has been.

And clubs can choose to introduce a newer class, within an existing set of rules, if they wish. Or not.

[worms]

you know, it's friday and my head hurts, why cant we just go with the flow, the GCR's are there, the class's are there, the rules are set.

WHY do we need change, its like calling a dog a sheep, it's still a dog!

Cheers Worms

[AjayVMX]

You've been drinking, right? Even by the early 1990s, the under-developed 500s were way behind their 250 siblings despite the extra grunt. Why do people pay so much money for Service Hondas, if the newer bits make no difference?

Nice.   

And wrong.  There were many many reasons why the 500cc class became lost in the wilderness, being outdated was not one of them.  Go ride a 2000 KX500 and see if it's an effective MX bike or not.

The death of Maico, the arrival of Aprillia, TM, Sherco & GasGas, KTM as a big player, Husqvarna moving to Italy, Husqvarna becoming a mainstream player, BMW's serious dirt bikes, the short-lived Suzuki-Kawasaki alliance, Cannondale, ATK, Husaberg, the rise and fall of VOR/Vertamati, the influx of Chinese bikes, the arrival on non-rubbish Chinese bikes... Yeah, nothing happening at all.

Certainly there has been a recent resurgence in non-Japanese manufacturers and that's great.  But they are still only nibbling at the edges really.  How many do you see at a national MX meeting however?  Probably more KTMs now than before, but fundamentally the Japanese makes are still dominant aren't they? 

As Firko says, this whole subject is nonsense on a forum such as this.  Just because Nathan thinks it's a great idea does not make it so.   

What the VMX scene really needs to do is focus back on the Vintage bikes and try to get more younger people to have a go at riding them, rather than just allow the modern bikes (pre-90 and later) to take over.  In this respect, our Western Australian friends have done a great job and from all accounts, their pre-78 racing scene hasn't died off nearly as much as it has in the Eastern states.

Taking the pre-90 and pre-95 road is just the lazy way.