the new look VMX rule book

[Moto]

The Mk8 like the TM are essentially 74 models with a bit more travel.
With travel reduced,they belong in Pre 75.
I can't see too many people bringing them out to be outclassed in Pre 78. Isn't the goal to get more bikes onto the track?  Not all people have a money tree to just "buy a 74"
The rules want to exclude certain available,competetive fringe models in pre 75 yet include the TS Suzukis which have major differences.Hard to see the logic in that.

[Davey Crocket]

If you put these bikes into pre 75 then there value would go through the roof so to speak, so using pre 75 bikes as too expensive to buy is a load of crap.....as Brad said...in our sport the bloke who is going to win is the better rider, not the better bike.....RM125S and YZ125C are both 75 model bikes and very capable of winning pre 78 (and do).....one the fastest blokes in QLD in pre 78 250 rides an MX250B....75 model.....MX400B and YZ400C are basically MX A's with a bit more travel (and weight)....they go very hard...I'm building at the moment a YZ250B which will be a pre 78 race bike...they came out in Feb/March 74...does it worry me? no, am I sooking...no.... theres no reason you cant make a 75 TM250 competative in pre78, afterall, a 75 RH250 is just a copy of a TM250

[09.0]

The Mk8 like the TM are essentially 74 models with a bit more travel.
With travel reduced,they belong in Pre 75. But are 75 models.The end.
I can't see too many people bringing them out to be outclassed in Pre 78. Isn't the goal to get more bikes onto the track?  Not all people have a money tree to just "buy a 74" Not just bikes on the track. It's era racing and the rules were set in the beginning.
The rules want to exclude certain available,competetive fringe models in pre 75 yet include the TS Suzukis which have major differences.Hard to see the logic in that. Pre 78 they should all stay.

Pre 78 only includes three years which is the least of all of the classes and adds to the reason that there are small fields. Surely taking more bikes away from a struggling class to put in a class that is (especially at national level) doing well is not a positive move.
I will be running my '75 Suzuki 250 when I finish restoring it in pre '78.

[Doc]

RM125S and YZ125C are both 75 model bikes and very capable of winning pre 78

Davey the bikes in question aren't the 125's. I agree 100% the '75 RM125 is where it belongs due to it's design. It's not a TM125 and shouldn't be in the same class. Not saying people can't win on '75 models nowdays just saying the TM250M isn't representative of the transitional design that occurred in the pre'78 era. It does have the shocks moved forward a tad but even the '75 RH250's were sold at a reduced price new as no-one seriously wanted to race them when it was completely outdated overnight with the pending introduction of the production RM250. Whatever will be will be but the TM250 design is primarily from pre'75 and not indicative of the transitional era it's placed in. For better or worse that's my whole argument.

[09.0]

I suppose there in lies another issue. With what you have just said, a '75 rh should be considered as well seeing as it is out classed by an rm. Of course not really but just a classic push your own wheel barrow type scenario. Even though you are correct with the design / look Doc, it will still shrink the pre 78 pool. What about all the poor '78 models that resemble '77 models more than 80/81 models?Maybe it should be pre 76 and pre 79....

[Davey Crocket]

I dont know why you get a bee in your bonnet over certain things Doc when you dont even ride/race....a 75 TM250 is a cool looking bike and theres no reason you cant modify one with say RM forks and tripples, longer rear shocks....bla, bla, and have a great bike.....shit, they would have done mods to them in the day....every bike was modded.....cheap RN lookalike....look at maRc fx's 74TM250....dont tell me that wouldnt be a hoot to ride (hey marC, can I book it for the Johnny old next year?)...Ali's little boy Ben won the all in pre75 250 at Crystal Brook on a Tm250.

[shorelinemc]

mk8 bully is a l/h shift not r/h some people cant deal with a right hand shift so having a l/h gives an advantage,forks have more travel,from memory dont the rules say you cant retro engineer to make a bike fit into a class

[Nathan S]

That's Evo.

[firko]

I've been giving the flow on issue a bit of thought over the last few days with the result being that I'm taking a big J curve in my opinion. My initial thoughts that the '75 TM should be allowed along with a number of other "almost" bikes were based on my belief that all that needed to be done was to fit a '74 model swingarm and it'd be the same as the '74 model. The revelation that the top shock mount is in a  different place puts a very different take on it. I now believe that unless a bike is absolutely identical to its 1974 predecessor it should not be in the pre '75 class. That goes for Mk 8 Bultacos and any other machines that officials have turned a blind eye to in the past. Bikes such as the '75 Honda CR125 M1 which have been accepted as identical flow ons in the past should remain. My take is that if a later bike has to be modified in any way to meet the class requirements it dips out because it opens a veritible can of worms making the scrutineers job even harder than it is now.

Unfortunately there are some bikes that will be stuck in that 'no-mans land' where they're too new for Pre '75 and technologically too old for pre '78. It's the unfortunate price we pay for going with a firm year cutoff. I understand the philosophy behind the commissions inclusion of such 'no-mans land' bikes as the '76 TS400  and '75 DT250B but I'm now starting to believe that their inclusion in pre '75 creates more problems than it solves. The main situation that arises from the selection of those particular bikes is that the criteria used to allow them in pre '75...that they're technologically pre 75 by design...can also be used to justify a large number of bikes that fit the criteria more even directly than the '76 TS400 and DT250B.
If a centre port, twin downtube TS400 is considered OK, why not a '76 XL250/350 Honda which is currently excluded because it has a centre port inlet tract as opposed to the earlier model side port. Why not allow the Mk8 Bultaco Pursang when the only difference to it's predecessor is the placement of two shock mounting brackets. The very discussion here on the forum would indicate that there are other 'grey area' bikes that people might be seen as more eligible than the committees chosen pair. To prevent any of this 'fudging' of history, it's probably wiser to accept no exceptions to the pre '75 cut off, including the current new admissions.

 In reality, the pre '75 class has been the leading division in our sport for 23 years and it's still going pretty well. With America becoming our vintage MX'er supermarket and many eligible bikes still being uncovered locally, I really don't see why we need to invite newer bikes into the fold when legitimate pre '75 bikes are still reasonably easy to find.
 



.

[Brian Watson]

My real concern is the viability of pre '78...the last couple of Nats I have been to, that have had pre '78, have shown very poor fields...except for pre 78 Open class at Broady....certainly the allowance for as many bikes as possible for pre 78 should be considered...I know that the years available to choose bikes is limited to 75-77....and I understand that this clas is to showcase the "first generation" of LTR bikes... from my observations it is difficult to see the Pre 78 class lasting very long... 

[09.0]

My real concern is the viability of pre '78...the last couple of Nats I have been to, that have had pre '78, have shown very poor fields...except for pre 78 Open class at Broady....certainly the allowance for as many bikes as possible for pre 78 should be considered...I know that the years available to choose bikes is limited to 75-77....and I understand that this clas is to showcase the "first generation" of LTR bikes... from my observations it is difficult to see the Pre 78 class lasting very long... 

Dito. What is really frustrating is the fact that they are a really good era bike to ride. Old school look and feel with a bit more suspension so you can ride them harder too. Short enough to feel comfortable in the corners yet tall enough to soak up the bumps and jumps. Maybe longer term '78 models should be included. That wouldn't be a silly idea.

[Slakewell]

There are lots of great pre 78 bikes, TT 500's were thick and fast at Harrisville last weekend and even the fields in 250's and 125's had 20 odd starters at just a club day.

[Doc]

I dont know why you get a bee in your bonnet over certain things Doc when you dont even ride/race

Nah that's where you're wrong in some respects Davey, Sure the racing part of things doesn't overly appeal to me but I do ride and I don't have any bee's in my bonnet, I'm quite allergic to the little buggers.

If the bike remains in pre'78 that's fine, I'm just putting up the case that the bike is from an earlier era design than 98% of the bikes it's pitted against and I enjoy a good debate. I simply don't believe it's a genuine reflection of the era. Sure the top shock mount is moved 20 or 25mm that but what's wrong with running it as they do with the AHRMA, change the swingarm, limit the rear travel to 4 inches and it's classed an eligible like-design 1975 model, same with the Bulty Pursang. It worries me not just seems out of place. 

Brad, the proddy '75 RH is in the same ball park as the RM125M/S, it is a transitional model with long travel suspension and frame design quite different to the '74 RH    

[Nathan S]

If its just about getting out there and riding and not worrying about how competitive your bike is, then why do we even have classes? Why do we even have VMX?

[Moto]

Maybe longer term '78 models should be included. That wouldn't be a silly idea.

  Here's a few of your quotes used previously. I won't use the childish red pen.

 But are 78 models.The end.

It's era racing and the rules were set in the beginning.

Pre 78 they should all stay.

 No double standards here

Surely taking more bikes away from a struggling class to put in a class that is (especially at national level) doing well is not a positive move.

Your theory didn,t work at the nats. The two Mk 8 riders chose not to ride pre 78 and I can understand why.
The nats is only one event per year.Including more bikes for club level is what we should be aiming for.