Pre 78 Rule changes

[Slakewell]

After the fine success of the first split Nats one thing that was highlighted to me was the Pre 78 suspension rules. Internet forums are not the place to change rules but to canvas suggestions. I will write a submission to MA with proposed changes I'm not expecting anyone else to do this for me.
I believe that bikes with standard factory suspension should not have to modify them or shorten travel to comply and bikes with mods available in 77 should be allowed. My years have taught me that wild suspension mods unbalance the bike to the point that it slows it down.
Look at the fastest lap times at this years Nats were set on Pre 75 bikes not pre 78 with longer travel case in point.
I'm sure everyone has an opinion for this so lets hear it.   

[saint]

Why do we have pre 78, when the other classes end with 5 or 10? (pre 70, pre 75, pre 85etc etc)
Why not pre 80?
Was there a glut of bikes made in 75, 76 & 77?
Who made this decision?
Am I missing something obvious?

[Davey Crocket]

Your last line answers your question.

[saint]

So I'm missing something obvious?
Ok, why not pre 73, pre 67, pre 83? 

[35elsinore]

I agree, if it was standard on the bike in the year it was made then that should be allowed.  

This discusion comes up every year or even more so, the classes [eg pre 78] the vmx gods come up with originally work well and seem to me to be a wise choice. Adding to slakewels argument, last year a 75 cr 250 won the pre 78 250 title which suspension is relatively the same as pre 75 bikes.

[Nathan S]

Why do we have pre 78, when the other classes end with 5 or 10? (pre 70, pre 75, pre 85etc etc)
Why not pre 80?
Was there a glut of bikes made in 75, 76 & 77?
Who made this decision?
Am I missing something obvious?

Pre-65 is supposed to represent the "old pommy thumper" era.
Pre-75 is supposed to represent the short-travel era.
Pre-78 is supposed to represent the transition era from short to long travel (ie: better than the short travel bikes, but uncompetitive against the later long travel ones).
Evo is supposed to represent the "old technology" era (as the rules specifically define).

There are always exceptions, but I think they do that pretty well. Obviously, Evo does it best - the rules specifically state what the rules want, rather than using a defacto age cut-off to do it).

AFAIK, pre-70, pre-85 and pre-90 are more about drawing lines in the sand (although you can find plenty of general trends in technology around the cut-offs, if that makes you feel better).

[FourstrokeForever]

Just to clarify my expertise......I am NO expert in this matter just another bloke with another opinion.
I believe the split was very much a success and kudos must go to the organizers.
I agree with Slakewell. If a bike was manufactured before 12/1977 and happens to have a bit more wheel than others in the era, I don't see why it the bike should need to modified "backwards" to conform with a rule book. The rule regarding eligibility should be as simple as " a bike manufactured ON or BEFORE 12/1977 to be eligible for Pre78 classes. Any bike outside of the standard ruling regarding suspension (wheel) travel must have proof of same in the form of brochures or magazine article from the day. Actually, to the best of my understanding, If you can provide documentry evidence that the bike came from the factory and or custom frame builder (C&J, Al Baker, White Bros etc.) with the extra travel, then it must be considered eligible.
As for the pre78 cut off date, if you take a good look at bikes available between 1975 and 1977, they do fall short in the suspension department compared to 1978  bikes where nearly 11 inches of travel was the norm.
In saying all this, I personally believe that Australian VMX rules should follow what is happening in Europe and the US where they have different cut off dates than we do. We only have to look at the size of the race meetings and all the beautiful exotic machinery they get to see that Aussie VMX is missing out on something....

[evo550]

Why do we have pre 78, when the other classes end with 5 or 10? (pre 70, pre 75, pre 85etc etc)
Why not pre 80?
Was there a glut of bikes made in 75, 76 & 77?
Who made this decision?
Am I missing something obvious?

Back, many moons ago, when pre 75 was the "youngest" class on the block, there was a small number of riders who had some '75 model and later vintage bikes that also wanted to ride. Back then nobody thought it would become the premier class, so let them ride( they would only be a "support class") at the most.
Fast foward 10/15 years, the evo class has exploded into mega 2 maico's, yz mono shocks, super svelte RM's and red devil Hondas. So the poor guy on his MX 400 B had to line up against a 490 maico and silver bullet Husky 500's, hence the pre 78 class was introduced to bridge the gap.

Hope that helps, remember evo has been around alot longer than any other post '75 class.

[saint]

Thanks for explaining things guys, all is good now. 
Obviously people have worked it out over the years.

[VMX247]

In saying all this, I personally believe that Australian VMX rules should follow what is happening in Europe and the US where they have different cut off dates than we do. We only have to look at the size of the race meetings and all the beautiful exotic machinery they get to see that Aussie VMX is missing out on something....

We only just changed the Nats for the split.We are still evolving.Rider/vmx population numbers show this.

Slakewell perhaps getting a local vmxclub support on your submission may have more push. 
cheers

[Slakewell]

In saying all this, I personally believe that Australian VMX rules should follow what is happening in Europe and the US where they have different cut off dates than we do. We only have to look at the size of the race meetings and all the beautiful exotic machinery they get to see that Aussie VMX is missing out on something....

We only just changed the Nats for the split.We are still evolving.Rider/vmx population numbers show this.

Slakewell perhaps getting a local vmxclub support on your submission may have more push. 
cheers

I will use the correct procedure with my submission I have done this before.

[Iain Cameron]

I agree with Slakewell if the bike was pre 78 built or mods of the time it should be allowed to race , Backward eng is not in my thoughts a logical idea . Iain

[shortshifter]

Are the YZ D models and the 77 Huskies the only examples of this reverse modification?It seems  crazy that 77 models raced in the day now have to be reverse modified to meet the class requirements.I would agree with Slakewells argument.Simo?You'd be on board wouldn't you?

[Rossvickicampbell]

Slakey - are you going to put your proposal forward across all eras i.e pre 75 as well?  Of course I have a vested interest as my YZB has to run restricted.  But if the rule change (if successful etc) appied pre 78 can not the same logic be applied pre 75?

[Slakewell]

Slakey - are you going to put your proposal forward across all eras i.e pre 75 as well?  Of course I have a vested interest as my YZB has to run restricted.  But if the rule change (if successful etc) appied pre 78 can not the same logic be applied pre 75?

I am only putting forward submissions to deal with Pre 78 the big difference being that pre 75 really only has the B model and the Maico's that dont fit with in the rules were as Pre 78 has many standard models that dont fit. My personal believe has always been for Pre 75 that standard factory should be allowed.