the new look VMX rule book

[35elsinore]

Funny enough the pre78 250 class at CB was a 75 cr250. Even tho this is not a lot different in suspension travel to the 73/74 cr an a far cry from 77 model bikes it goes to show that whos on it probable makes the most difference. So i think if want an edge in a class buy or build a bike that is at the leading edge of that class or just ride what you have. Changing elidgability for certain bikes, the argument will just go around in circles. The cut off at the moment pre75, pre 78 is still the best cut off to make it as fair as possible. As long as you dont have to push the thing its all fun even if your last.

[Nathan S]

For better or for worse, the vast majority of VMX racers nowdays are there to race.
This means we'll want to be as competitive as possible for our riding ability - so its unrealistic to expect people to race hopelessly out classed bikes like DT-B in pre-78.

[Curly3]

Age format is the only fair way do do it and I'm talking bikes not riders.
A bikes capability shouldn't  come into the equation, if you want to be at the pointy end, choose another mount, it's never been any different and never will.
If that's the category your bike falls into, then that's it.

[Doc]

211, Dave, The '75/'76 RM's are where you stop. With the TM250 it's only a minor change that can be easily adjusted to conform to the travel limit rule. The rest of the bike is deadset of pre'75 design. I'm not out to stir up an argument nor do I wish to offend anyone and I don't know a lot about the '76 CR250 or MX250's but, if the CR or MX is excluded due to the same rear wheel travel issue and nothing else then they too flow on and belong back in pre'75. Maybe it's time the travel rule was looked at more seriously. It's a shame as these bikes are out there but can't/don't or won't be raced by many simply because they are classified as noncompetitive when lined against the popular pre'78 models. To change either rule wouldn't decline the numbers from pre'78 but it may well swell the numbers in pre'75. End of my whining

[JohnnyO]

211, Dave, The '75/'76 RM's are where you stop. With the TM250 it's only a minor change that can be easily adjusted to conform to the travel limit rule. The rest of the bike is deadset of pre'75 design. I'm not out to stir up an argument nor do I wish to offend anyone and I don't know a lot about the '76 CR250 or MX250's but, if the CR or MX is excluded due to the same rear wheel travel issue and nothing else then they too flow on and belong back in pre'75. Maybe it's time the travel rule was looked at more seriously. It's a shame as these bikes are out there but can't/don't or won't be raced by many simply because they are classified as noncompetitive when lined against the popular pre'78 models. To change either rule wouldn't decline the numbers from pre'78 but it may well swell the numbers in pre'75. End of my whining

The '75- '76 CR250 has a lot of changes from the '74. The frame is different with moved up top and bottom shock mounts, the cylinder has the exhaust port on the opposite side, the cases are different, it has an up pipe, longer travel front forks etc.. I wouldn't call it a flow on model.
I think the problem with the '75 TM250/400's is the frame is different because of the moved forward top and bottom shock mounts, pretty much all the other flow on models have the same top shock mounts as the '74 models.

[JohnnyO]

For better or for worse, the vast majority of VMX racers nowdays are there to race.
This means we'll want to be as competitive as possible for our riding ability - so its unrealistic to expect people to race hopelessly out classed bikes like DT-B in pre-78.

If you want to race pre '75 and be competitive you wouldn't race a DT anyway.. you'd buy a 1974 motocross bike!

[09.0]

For better or for worse, the vast majority of VMX racers nowdays are there to race.
This means we'll want to be as competitive as possible for our riding ability - so its unrealistic to expect people to race hopelessly out classed bikes like DT-B in pre-78.

I don't agree that the majority buy a bike that is the most competitive. From what I have seen, quite a few don't want to go look outside the square when it comes to different makes. Fear of the unknown in a different brand. Also for the love of a certain brand. Not to mention the ' I had one back in the day so I bought another'. I think I'm a minority that actually does that. In most cases any way.
FWIW I'm not too excited in the new rule changes ( either way). With the ease of getting bikes from the U.S., the prices they are now fetching ( cheaper) and the amount of people importing them here makes buying a real mxer quite an easy and relatively cheap task.
Also the tracks that we ride on ( at least the majority) would not make a tm at that much of a disadvantage.

[Moto]

They were 75 models, were asked to ride the 78 class and not the pre 75 class, they didnt want to do thatcolor

.
 
       I know the MK 8 250 is a 75 built bike.You didnt answer why the bikes were excluded,travel or serial numbers?
       The reason I ask is because I believed that if the MK8 suspension was adjusted to 7 & 4 then it was classed as a flow on model. Is this correct?       
       I have been racing(including a nats) a Mk7 250 look alike(Mk 8 numbers) for over ten years without eligibility problems in pre 75 250. I have examples of these frames/engines and I know the Mk 8 when in Mk 7 trim has no measurable improvement over the Mk 7.Only the numbers changed.
       
       
       

[firko]

I know the MK 8 250 is a 75 built bike.You didnt answer why the bikes were excluded,travel or serial numbers?

I answered with what I figured would be Daves answer. Sorry for butting in with an opinion.
For what it's worth, I've never knocked back or have seem anyone else knock back a Mk8 250 as long as it's fitted with Mk7 swingarm for the reasons you state. I personally think they should be allowed but that's merely my take on it, not anything official. There are a number of bikes currently not eligible that I feel should be allowed in pre '75 because they offer no advantage over the earlier model. I wasn't aware that the TM250 M had a different upper shock mounting position so that being the case, perhaps the committee has grounds for not allowing it. Having said that, I think that the differences between an TM L and a TM M frame are far less than the differences of a '76 twin downtube, centre port TS to the '74 TS. I think they all should be allowed. I think that the same criteria that allows that centre port TM should be used to allow the centre inlet port XL250/350...a bike that's also stuck out there in no-mans land.
I understand and support the comittees reforms on eligibility but I believe some more candidates for flow on eligibility could have been considered. Maybe next year?

[Nathan S]

If you want to race pre '75 and be competitive you wouldn't race a DT anyway.. you'd buy a 1974 motocross bike!
[/quote]

Yeah, I know - it was beyond my enthusiasm to type it all out on my phone, but:

The DTs are clearly out-classed as pre-75 bikes, but at least they're vaguely in the right ball-park. They can also be easily/cheaply brought up to MX-A performance, which puts them solidly into the 'worth having' category for the average club rider.
No amount of money is going to make them worth having against the RMs and YZ-Ds and Euro bikes in pre-78.

--------------------------

More generally, the discussion about DT250Bs is a storm in a tea-cup. All that's changed is that they're now officially recognised as a legitimate carry-over model, which says it all: The differences are trivial, so they should race with the bikes of 'their era'.
Different front hub, two extra frame gussets, and a radially finned cylinder head were the only things stopping them from being automatic carry-over models anyhow.
The 400s have a significantly different motor to the 360s (no balance shaft), so that rules them out.

--------------------------

The Yamaha MX250B is essentially a YZ250B frame with an MX250A motor in it - you could build a 100% pre-75 legal "MX250B" if you were prepared to hack a YZ-B frame. There's no parts or technology in the 1975 MX250B that didn't exist in 1974 (except for the radial cylinder head).
The 75 CR125 Elsinore is an accepted carry-over model because you could build one in 1974 - surely the same should apply to the Yamahas?

--------------------------

How many times have I said "We need to go with technology OR dates"?
How many times have I been pooh-poohed?
All of the 'tricky' questions about the Mk8 Bultacos, MX-Bs, DT-Bs, V75s, TM250Ls, etc etc go away if you use one or the other.

[Moto]

For what it's worth, I've never knocked back or have seem anyone else knock back a Mk8 250 as long as it's fitted with Mk7 swingarm for the reasons you state. I personally think they should be allowed but that's merely my take on it, not anything official. There are a number of bikes currently not eligible that I feel should be allowed in pre '75 because they offer no advantage over the earlier model.

    Thanks for your views on this Mark. 211,Dave, can you enlighten us with your official view please.

[09.0]

Pre 78 is one of the smallest classes and needs the '75 models in there for numbers. Also PRE75 is just that. If you want to ride pre '75 specifically, buy a '74.
If you are a mid packer in pre 78 and think it's because your bike is out classed. WRONG. It's because you aren't fast enough..... You will be a mid packer in pre '75 too.

[Doc]

It's not so much about winning or losing.

Point is about the collective placement of bikes of similar build and technologies. My original post was in regards to a '75 TM250. No matter how you look at them they are a TM250 and nothing like an RM in design. The TS400 example as stated..from '75-'77 they evolved from the single cradle frame to the twin downtube, went to centre port exhaust as well as other styling changes. They are deemed perfectly legal yet the TM250 which only changed the rear shock mounts and nothing else are not. It's like putting lemons with oranges and saying they are all oranges. You wouldn't see anyone bother with a TS400 in pre'78 and it's much the same view with the TM250M. Can't lose numbers in pre '78 because the numbers barely exist in the first place. Limit the rear wheel travel then they fit perfectly with there blood brothers and people would be more inclined to drag them out and race them.

As Nathan said, stick to the year cut off and all issues instantly disappear. Makes perfect sense when presently there seems a little hypocrisy.

[09.0]

If it isn't about winning or losing they would front up and ride where the rules state they can. That is more for the mk8 owners that want to run pre 75.
 I also agree with you point of view regarding the TS. It should not be included seeing there are so many differences to the earlier model as you pointed out.

[Nathan S]

We can all put foward our points until the cows come home, but we'll get nowhere because the discussion is about philisophies.

I agree completely with Doc, though: "Point is about the collective placement of bikes of similar build and technologies" - perfectly said.
The pre-75 designation was always meant to represent the short-travel era of bikes, not the year 1974.
The wording of the Evo regs, and the blurb about pre-78 shows that those classes are not supposed to be about specific years, either.