Pre 78 Rule changes

[JohnnyO]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 2012 Classic Nationals was the first time a pre-78 bike has been tested and excluded for excessive suspension travel.
That being the case, the rules have effectively allowed stock 1977 models with over 9" of travel to compete for the previous five years of Nationals.
Those bikes have not dominated the class.
There is no reason to think that changing the rule to "9/9" or standard travel (whichever is greater)" will have any unintended consequences - its nothing more than enshrining what has been happening for years.

 

How do you know what bikes dominated the classes? I didn't see your arse on the startline.
What i'm saying about changing the rule to 10" is that it puts the '75/ '76 models at more of a disadvantage and they may become a less popular choice. The way it is now there is a huge variety of machines in pre '78 and the class is healthy.. No need for change.

[JohnnyO]

Slakewells first post was about the idea of writing to the MA. Anyway us southeners aint talking about club days, we are talking about our MA affiliated series that use's the MA's rule book.

Ditto in Qld

[motomaniac]

And when does this subject come up? When there is an issue at a NATIONAL event.

no thats when you hear about it. Whats discussed down here and has been for alongtime isn't necessarily put up for discussion on this forum like  Slakewells and others threads .DOH!

[motomaniac]

Slakewells first post was about the idea of writing to the MA. Anyway us southeners aint talking about club days, we are talking about our MA affiliated series that use's the MA's rule book.

Ditto in Qld

So why suggest its about clubdays ? Doh!

[Nathan S]

Brad, A widely ignored rule is not a rule - We've already seen what happens when the 9" rule is ignored for bikes that came stock with more than 9" of travel: everyone rides the bikes they like, and the fastest riders win.

My suggested alternative relates to the bikes' original travel. So that set of 11" travel Simons forks would have to be brought back to the stock travel of the bike they're going on to (or 9" if the bike had 9" or less).
I reckon you'd be quick to accuse me of being difficult if I'd suggested that sort of scenario...

[JohnnyO]

Slakewells first post was about the idea of writing to the MA. Anyway us southeners aint talking about club days, we are talking about our MA affiliated series that use's the MA's rule book.

Ditto in Qld

So why suggest its about clubdays ? Doh!

That's what we call them.. QVMX club days!

[Nathan S]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 2012 Classic Nationals was the first time a pre-78 bike has been tested and excluded for excessive suspension travel.
That being the case, the rules have effectively allowed stock 1977 models with over 9" of travel to compete for the previous five years of Nationals.
Those bikes have not dominated the class.
There is no reason to think that changing the rule to "9/9" or standard travel (whichever is greater)" will have any unintended consequences - its nothing more than enshrining what has been happening for years.

 

How do you know what bikes dominated the classes? I didn't see your arse on the startline.
What i'm saying about changing the rule to 10" is that it puts the '75/ '76 models at more of a disadvantage and they may become a less popular choice. The way it is now there is a huge variety of machines in pre '78 and the class is healthy.. No need for change.

I've raced pre-78 at three of the last six Nats, and it's the one class I always ride at club level.
I've seen what bikes win, and why - and it's got SFA to do with the difference between 9 & 10" of suspension. travel

[JohnnyO]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 2012 Classic Nationals was the first time a pre-78 bike has been tested and excluded for excessive suspension travel.
That being the case, the rules have effectively allowed stock 1977 models with over 9" of travel to compete for the previous five years of Nationals.
Those bikes have not dominated the class.
There is no reason to think that changing the rule to "9/9" or standard travel (whichever is greater)" will have any unintended consequences - its nothing more than enshrining what has been happening for years.

 

How do you know what bikes dominated the classes? I didn't see your arse on the startline.
What i'm saying about changing the rule to 10" is that it puts the '75/ '76 models at more of a disadvantage and they may become a less popular choice. The way it is now there is a huge variety of machines in pre '78 and the class is healthy.. No need for change.

I've raced pre-78 at three of the last six Nats, and it's the one class I always ride at club level.
I've seen what bikes win, and why - and it's got SFA to do with the difference between 9 & 10" of suspension. travel

I've been in the top 3 three times in pre 78 Nationals in '09 & 2012 and the bikes around me haven't been '75/'76 models that's what i'm saying. I'm talking about the difference between a proposed 10" and the 7" travel '75/'76 models, it'll only make them less competitive and less desirable.

[09.0]

Brad, A widely ignored rule is not a rule - We've already seen what happens when the 9" rule is ignored for bikes that came stock with more than 9" of travel: everyone rides the bikes they like, and the fastest riders win.

My suggested alternative relates to the bikes' original travel. So that set of 11" travel Simons forks would have to be brought back to the stock travel of the bike they're going on to (or 9" if the bike had 9" or less).
I reckon you'd be quick to accuse me of being difficult if I'd suggested that sort of scenario...

Well my forks are period correct , available in the day. I would argue that i have as much right to run them.
A widely ignored rule? IMO its not widely ignored. It's THE most talked about rule there is. Also IMO slakewell was counting on no body protesting but the system was different this time catching one out. I like the idea of checking top finishers regardless as was done with the pre 78 classes. It would stop heaps more of those running outside the rules.

[IT400C]

I suppose I'm sitting on the fence on this one..

I ride IT400C's in the Pre 78 class, so I know about the disadvantages a lack of suspension travel brings on..  But I ride the 76 model because I love them, not because I think it's the bike that will make it easiest for me to win the class.

And If I had I YZ-D, I'd probably want to run it as it came from the factory too rather than restrict it to 9" of travel.

But in all honesty, I can't see any point in changing the rules that are obviously working in a class that enjoys so much popularity. 

- Run a Pre 78 bike at more than 9" of travel in club days if you want - it's the way it happens now.

- If you want to run a series of events, but don't agree with the MA Pre 78 - 9" travel rule, then specifiy in your Supp Regs that you'll be running Pre 78 as a 10" or 'As it came from the factory' class.  That's what the Supplementary Regulations are for.  As long as it's not a State or National Title event, and there's no safety issues in the Supp Regs, you can run your events to whatever rules you want.

- And if you're keen enough to race your Pre 78 bike at a National or State Title, then be prepared to restrict the travel to meet the GCR's...

My $0.02....

[worms]

Brad is right, only the winning machines need to be inspected to ensure the rules are applied, makes no diff to us back markers if a machine is raced with 1" more travel, hasnt helped me

worms

[09.0]

Brad is right, only the winning machines need to be inspected to ensure the rules are applied, makes no diff to us back markers if a machine is raced with 1" more travel, hasnt helped me

worms

I think all should comply. It's obviously too hard to check every single bike though.

[worms]

damn

worms

[Nathan S]

Well my forks are period correct , available in the day. I would argue that i have as much right to run them.
A widely ignored rule? IMO its not widely ignored. It's THE most talked about rule there is. Also IMO slakewell was counting on no body protesting but the system was different this time catching one out. I like the idea of checking top finishers regardless as was done with the pre 78 classes. It would stop heaps more of those running outside the rules.

Up until the 2012 CMX Nationals, the 9/9" rule was not being enforced (at least not for standard bikes) - it was ignored in the only place that matters: on race day.
How many people have actually limited the travel of their pre-78 bikes to comply? A half a dozen? There's a truck-load more unmodified, and technically illegal bikes being used in VMX (including previous Nationals) than modified ones...

There IS a good argument that your forks should be allowed in pre-78 if the were available in 1977, just like Shinobi water-cooled heads, etc.
But those are after-market parts that were never common. This issue is about standard bikes that must be a true representation of the era - a different scenario to mega-trick forks.

[Davey Crocket]

The thing that gets me is we are only talking (if you call it that) about this on here is because a punter on here who knows better entered a bike with a hired gun on it, got pinged for too much travel and disqualified....his rider was always going to be up the pointy end so why?....his other bike complied....he knew the rules.....it was pointed out on here months before the event and there was 5000 pages on it....but he still did it.....is that stupid or just taking the piss?....the pre 78 class racing was a great specticle to watch and the variety of bikes was like a pre 75 race....awesome...nothing needs to be changed except a few peoples mindsets. I predict in the future that there will be age group racing in pre 78 which is a huge positive for a small sport like ours, preserve what we have, it doesnt cost any extra or very little to make your bike comply, suspension is something you set up just like building your wheels or motor...get on with it....get a life.