Pre 75 - Yesterday's Hero?

[Mick D]

To limit the suspension of bikes to less than what they were, is a false image and representation of a cut off date.

Two of my friends that are not inclined to allocate time to written forum debate, they both have pre75 mounts. One uses his for dirt track. The other as a garage queen. Both abstain from using them as mounts in VMX. They consider it as silent protest, to a rule that has been conceived from opinion rather than precedence of reality. They are of course free to make that choice. They both have plenty of other rides, but yes, the class suffers.

[Nathan S]

Mick,
Right the way back, the "pre-75" class was aiming for the short travel era. The cut-off date was simply convenient - and flawed. Seeing as various manufacturers adopted LTR at different times, then there's simply no way that a single year cut off will accurately represent an era.
From my point of view, we need to either change the rules to reflect the ERAs, or make them specifically reflect the bikes that were available in 1974 - and then be a hard-nosed prick about enforcing that. The current method of mixing and matching is where most of the grief comes from...

If we were to change pre-75 to pre-74, then be prepared for some lynchings - most 1974 model bikes would be excluded, and their owners would be seriously piddled off...

Don't get me wrong: I think there's a lot of ways the rules could be improved - even though the basic ideas are very, very good - and I agree with the direction you're heading. I was just trying to bring a wider perspective into the discussion.

[Mick D]

Mick,
Right the way back, the "pre-75" class was aiming for the short travel era. The cut-off date was simply convenient - and flawed. Seeing as various manufacturers adopted LTR at different times, then there's simply no way that a single year cut off will accurately represent an era.
From my point of view, we need to either change the rules to reflect the ERAs, or make them specifically reflect the bikes that were available in 1974 - and then be a hard-nosed prick about enforcing that. The current method of mixing and matching is where most of the grief comes from...

If we were to change pre-75 to pre-74, then be prepared for some lynchings - most 1974 model bikes would be excluded, and their owners would be seriously piddled off...

Don't get me wrong: I think there's a lot of ways the rules could be improved - even though the basic ideas are very, very good - and I agree with the direction you're heading. I was just trying to bring a wider perspective into the discussion.

A debate is looking for an opening to drive a wedge in, damm hard when I agree with the common sense displayed in the structure of that post.

There will never be a solution or out come that suits all. There will never be pre71, pre72, pre73, pre74, pre75, pre76 and so on. What a mistake that would be, not going to happen. So a compromise as settled by majority, yes. But I would prefer to concede to the honesty of the cut-off date, rather than shit. And as we all know, I am most certainly not the only one who thinks along these lines.

I am saying, that me/I loath seeing the difficulties of mods and policing, based on the intent of reducing a machine to less than what it was at the point of production.

I/We, or more to my point me, prefer the program to improve! Not to step backwards. It goes against a natural grain. well for many of us, I would imagine.

[holeshot buddy]

my take on this is most of you guys have only been around vmx
for last 5 years or so
our club started in late 90s and was mainly pre75 and a bit of pre 78
we have run these classes to the point were the numbers have dropped off
even pre 78 is down
and its not the tracks and they are not too rough for pre75
some older members might remember smiths rd it was grass track and rough
brisbane ran meets there for years till it was closed down
we even ran the qld titles at tivoli jumps and all
no one complained and we had riders from interstate as well
and full fields in nearly all classes not like now
we have a smooth short track f all jumps
and hardley any riders to constitute classes
so dont blame tracks
its probably more of a economic issue people cant afford to race and only go to the CD events
which is ok . dont get me wrong there is a place for nudgee for the older riders its great
just wondering why the not so old riders are not coming to other events

[SAABCOMBI]

Maybe the older fellow just done want to race their bikes anymore, I have been involve with VMX since the day it started, I put it down to the cost of the day, license, fuel.

[cheapracer]

our club started in late 90s and was mainly pre75 and a bit of pre 78
we have run these classes to the point were the numbers have dropped off
even pre 78 is down

actually QVMX had it's origins in about '93 when I started running some natural terrain events using Beaudesert clubs licences then getting under our own QVMX banner (always I extend my thanks to Lindsay Granger for that help).

QVMX was a pre '75, natural terrain specific club and the only way you could run a '78 is if you were a pre '75 runner as well - that worked out very well by the way.

My direct answer to your post and the topic about lower numbers in QVMX's case is that the club has gone about as far away from it's original intentions as you possibly could, good luck to the club's management if numbers are what you want overall but don't be bewildered why pre '75 mentality doesn't want to mix with pre' 2025 bikes or whatever year you are up to now.

Seriously this isn't a bitch about the club now, congratulations on continued success and providing riders & bikes a place to be.

[090]

To limit the suspension of bikes to less than what they were, is a false image and representation of a cut off date.

Two of my friends that are not inclined to allocate time to written forum debate, they both have pre75 mounts. One uses his for dirt track. The other as a garage queen. Both abstain from using them as mounts in VMX. They consider it as silent protest, to a rule that has been conceived from opinion rather than precedence of reality. They are of course free to make that choice. They both have plenty of other rides, but yes, the class suffers.

With regards to the suspension limits imposed on pre75 bikes, are there any other bikes that are limited other than a 74.5 Maico? That is the only example I have ever heard IN PRE 75 and if it is the case then really, this is a storm in a tea cup. For one, how many 74.5 Maico's see the track? And two, 99.9% of them would have replacement shocks that would conform to the era. All over half an inch of travel  .
Your mates are just lazy in my eyes. A 'silent protest' is another word for doing nothing. If they feel so strong about it, then push for the change. I am also to assume they both have 74.5 Maico's with standard suspension on them?

our club started in late 90s and was mainly pre75 and a bit of pre 78
we have run these classes to the point were the numbers have dropped off
even pre 78 is down

actually QVMX had it's origins in about '93 when I started running some natural terrain events using Beaudesert clubs licences then getting under our own QVMX banner (always I extend my thanks to Lindsay Granger for that help).

QVMX was a pre '75, natural terrain specific club and the only way you could run a '78 is if you were a pre '75 runner as well - that worked out very well by the way.

My direct answer to your post and the topic about lower numbers in QVMX's case is that the club has gone about as far away from it's original intentions as you possibly could, good luck to the club's management if numbers are what you want overall but don't be bewildered why pre '75 mentality doesn't want to mix with pre' 2025 bikes or whatever year you are up to now.

Seriously this isn't a bitch about the club now, congratulations on continued success and providing riders & bikes a place to be.

Nice little self plug (again) at the start. QVMX has gone where the members have voted to. What the members want, they will invariably get as that's what a club is all about. And why don't they want to mix with '2025' bikes any way? This is one of the reasons why they are dwindling. Sheer stupidity IMO . Not wanting to see or ride with the later model bikes as they aren't vintage bikes. Yes they look modern as they have disc's, watercooling, single shock etc like a modern bike. But they ARE vintage bikes. Not if you are pushing 50 but yes if you are 40. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. Another one,modern bikes cut up the track. With the numbers we get to a vmx event? BULLSHIT! I'm only considered young(ish) around vmx circles at 44 but one thing is for sure, I will neck myself before I get all one eyed and set in my ways like alot of old blokes get. The ones that are dead against later model bikes, or suspension limits, or tracks too rough, or I don't like the president, or the tracks are too far away, or any other pathetic little excuse you can make up so you can sit on the couch and watch the idiot box, ARE the reason pre75 is dying.

[Davey Crocket]

Good to see the old Brad back....you tell em pumkin!!..

[Husky500evo]

With regards to the suspension limits imposed on pre75 bikes, are there any other bikes that are limited other than a 74.5 Maico? That is the only example I have ever heard IN PRE 75 and if it is the case then really, this is a storm in a tea cup. For one, how many 74.5 Maico's see the track? 

    Some time ago I measured up the rear suspension travel on a '74 WR400 Husky (fitted with a Mag 250 swingarm) and found it to be about 6 inches, which is not much less than a '74.5 Maico. So I would think that a '74 Husky Mag 250 would be over the travel limit. I have not had a good look at a '74.5 KTM or a YZ250/360B , but I would imagine that they would also be over the limit . I am sure that there would be other examples as well .
     A couple of years ago I decided to sell my pre '75 bikes, because I couldn't see much sense in having them sitting around and only getting to ride them once or twice a year. But now that we have a new club in my local area that caters for pre '75 bikes, I have got some enthusiasm back for that class and gone out and purchased another Maico big bore (as well as building up a 250 class bike) . Obviously, I think that the only way for pre '75 class numbers to increase, is to try and get younger guys interested .   

[Nathan S]

I don't think the cost of a local event keeps people away. Once you've paid for the bike, the riding gear, etc a day out racing is very cheap entertainment, even including fuel, day licence etc.
I basically agree holeshotbuddy - no matter what the clubs do, the numbers are dwindling. There's always an excuse to stay at home - but if you want to do it, you will find a way to do it.

[bazza]

 Amix of dedicated vmx riders getting older - Modern trail/mx bikes so good to older riders bodies they buy them and have a choice what to ride - restricted by national body as to tracks,=better tracks more riders - and economic times

[holeshot buddy]

mark i have just noticed the numbers for pre 75 have dwindled down at
club level over the years
nothing to do with tracks or classes
we set our classes on the day (like in the old days)
basically if enough pre 70 bikes turned up we would let
them have a class otherwise if only a couple show they run with the
pre 75s i see it as a yearly attrition the numbers get less every year

[Rossvickicampbell]

Brad - YZB's have to be restricted to be eligible also.

cheers

Rossco

[cheapracer]

QVMX has gone where the members have voted to.

They don't actually have that right because the club is constitutionally a pre '75 club, but I digress, I don't really care where it's at now because when I get back I'll do it all over again my way anyway.

I tell you my QVMX story to point out that I have a reasonable grip on and a track record on what makes pre '75 successful and thats relevant to this thread.

Oh, and because I'm awesome.

[cheapracer]

Some time ago I measured up the rear suspension travel on a '74 WR400 Husky and found it to be about 6 inches .... I am sure that there would be other examples as well .

I haven't had a pre '75 bike that I didn't have to falsely limit to 4" other than the '73 OSSA SDR I think.