Pre 78 Rule changes

[Montynut]

Why change something that does not appear to be broken.

My '77 Montesa had over 10" front and rear so did Maico now reduced to 9" why muck around with a class that is growing.

Pre 80 means that EVO basically becomes RM 'T', YZ G&H, Maico, Husky and limited models from other makes. EVO 125 is almost gone completely. All you do is move the perceived problem in Pre78 to EVO.

[09.0]

The Husky forks were the problem not the rear as there 10.5 Standard.
The same rider was faster on the much shorter travel KTM 250 which I had the time to set up to comply. 

well that's interesting as it was the rear that the eligibility scrutineers seemed to be focused on more so. I therefore assumed the rear end failed to comply. Either way a shame for the rider , especially as it seems you know the rules as they stand and decided to run the gauntlet .

[Slakewell]

The Husky forks were the problem not the rear as there 10.5 Standard.
The same rider was faster on the much shorter travel KTM 250 which I had the time to set up to comply. 

well that's interesting as it was the rear that the eligibility scrutineers seemed to be focused on more so. I therefore assumed the rear end failed to comply. Either way a shame for the rider , especially as it seems you know the rules as they stand and decided to run the gauntlet .

I only purchased the Husky a few weeks before the Nats and I wanted to support the growing pre 78 class. The rear suspension was not measured. I did do a half assed job on the forks which I did not read the GCR,s in the way they were measured so once they were pulled apart they moved there full travel which now I know I should have done differently.My KTM that won the 250 class is and enduro frame so it only has 9" rear travel and the forks need a small spacer to reduce them to under 9"so the bike is still well balanced The KTM MC has much longer travel and would be a shame to reverse engineer to make it comply. I will put a submission to MA that asks for standard factory suspension settings be allowed and modified suspension to be 10" of course if you dont agree you can lodge an objection.

[Nathan S]

Why change something that does not appear to be broken.

My '77 Montesa had over 10" front and rear so did Maico now reduced to 9" why muck around with a class that is growing.

Pre 80 means that EVO basically becomes RM 'T', YZ G&H, Maico, Husky and limited models from other makes. EVO 125 is almost gone completely. All you do is move the perceived problem in Pre78 to EVO.

Pre-80 becomes a RM-N and CR-RZ benefit, with the 80/81 Maicos and Yamaha Gs & Hs being the biggest losers.
If we were to change Evo to a year cut off, it should be pre-81 rather than pre-80. 1981 was the first year when non-Evo bikes became common, and it also adds a third more eligible bikes to the class (pre-80 would otherwise only be 1978 and 79 models.

The Evo class' success is partly due to the large number of bikes that are eligible AND competitive.

[Simo63]

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?

Not after spending $$$hundreds having my YZ lowered to meet the 9/9 class rule.  I'm happy with it the way it is now.  Handles a lot better than it did with standard 10/10 suspension 

There is an old saying, it's not the size that counts, it's how you use it.  I think there is something in that for all of us don't you 

[Slakewell]

My years have taught me that the lower the center of G the faster you corner even De coster said the first long travel bikes were shit untill they got it sorted. I just dont believe that and inch or so of travel will make the difference in how far up you finish and there many examples that prove this.
I hate the idea that we must reverse engineer our bikes to fit into rules that we can change if we choose too if it was just a few models like Pre 75 then it's different but as we know the majority of Pre 78 dont comply standard.

[JohnnyO]

Looking back over this thread it probably is best we leave the rules as they are, increasing to 10" will only further handicap the '75 and some '76 model bikes that have a lot less than 9" travel standard.(CR250M1 & M2, MX250B etc)
Those bikes will then end up on the scrap heap..

[Freakshow]

I see it as leveling the playing field, not about up-engineering bikes to make them like something they were not buy fitting kits etc.
to be compeditive.

The Full Feilds in All pre 78 classes this year says to me the class is right ATM.  Those that dont want to ride on skill rather than changing rules to make it easy on them in the garage, ride up a class then.  Thats going to let some of the reserve riders on the line, cause thats where its going - pre 78 will be the premier class in the ealry CMX nationals.  

I have a 74YZB but dont ride it pre 75, but i rode a 75 TM in the pre 78 which has no travel.  You make the choice what you ride and why and just make it fit the rules.    

IF you free up suspension i guarentee next will be arms and then everyone will be modding swingarm mounts all over the shop. and then you have barsterdized the whole class.     Sad part is you knew the rules.   leave it as it is.

I agree with DC, For a white man he speaks the truth......   well in this case he does....

[bazza]

may be evo twin shock

[Rossvickicampbell]

Freaky - I think you miss some of the point - it isn't about freeing up the suspenison rules but maybe letting people run with what their bike came back with as standard.  More a problem in pre 78 than anywhere - but to say this will then lead to further requests, changes etc........................ 

[brent j]

My years have taught me that the lower the center of G the faster you corner even De coster said the first long travel bikes were shit untill they got it sorted. I just dont believe that and inch or so of travel will make the difference in how far up you finish and there many examples that prove this.
I hate the idea that we must reverse engineer our bikes to fit into rules that we can change if we choose too if it was just a few models like Pre 75 then it's different but as we know the majority of Pre 78 dont comply standard.

I don’t think it’s fair to say the majority of pre 78 bikes don’t meet the 9/9 suspension rule.
I can’t imagine any 75-76 models missing out and how many 77’s don’t fit in.

If this was truly a majority thing and the majority of bikes in the class were affected then I’d say change it but to suit the minority that don’t fit it seems a bit excessive

Realistically how many standard bikes don’t meet the 9/9 rule?
YZ250/400D Yamahas
Husqvarnas, what years, models?
Montesas, what years, models

What I can see happening is the classes will start to creep

Pre 78 becomes a bit closer to EVO
Pre 75 comes a bit closer to pre 78 etc

[motomaniac]

I don’t think it’s fair to say the majority of pre 78 bikes don’t meet the 9/9 suspension rule.
I can’t imagine any 75-76 models missing out and how many 77’s don’t fit in.

If this was truly a majority thing and the majority of bikes in the class were affected then I’d say change it but to suit the minority that don’t fit it seems a bit excessive

Realistically how many standard bikes don’t meet the 9/9 rule?
YZ250/400D Yamahas
Husqvarnas, what years, models?
Montesas, what years, models
[/quote]

77 250/390 Huskies
77 250/360 Montesa's
77 AW Maico's
77KTM/PENTONS
GP111 OSSA's as per the GCR's(not sure why the Bulls aren mentioned) as well as any customs like Kramers or HL500 that were fitted with Ceriani's or marzoochis from the day
or any FOX,FMF replicas , A Make Pace CR250 M2 replica as pictured adb #4.
Thats about all unless you include the RM125B forks

[gt96]

The yanks seem to have a reasonable statement regarding this class.

"The Historic classes are intended to represent the "first generation" of long-travel bikes that were commercially available in the 1975-77 period. The time frame is provided only as a guideline, as some 1977 models are of the second generation long-travel bikes that would clearly outclass the earlier models if allowed to run together. For this reason we do not classify motorcycles strictly by the year they were produced, but by some similar characteristics that were possessed by the majority of these first-generation long-travel motorcycles, such as suspension travel."

Source: http://www.ahrma.org/ahrma_pdfs/Forms/resources/rulebook/sec12.htm

[John Orchard]

^^^^^^ the AHRMA stuff looks ok.

[Nathan S]

If we got rid of those bloody RM125Bs from Pre-78, it would suit me (as a YZ owner...).
Probably be a bit boring riding around by myself, though.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the rule should be "a maximum of 9" of travel, or the standard specification, whichever is greater". Pretty much just the status quo (as it applies to club racing and previous Nationals), without the ball-ache.