Rule re-write.

[Slakewell]

It is my belief that the suspension limit rule for pre 78 is just removed. Same as the mounting points stuff. My argument is that any major raising of suspension lengths for pre 78 makes the bike handle so badly that it slows them down. Forks must be manufacture before 78.     

[Lozza]

I would 16.15.7.(ba)  to "operationaly similar and visualy indistinguishable" other than that pretty much complete

[JohnnyO]

I would actually like to see the shock mount rule removed altogether for pre 78 to allow bikes like the 75 Maico & TM Suzuki, 75/76 CR250 & KX250/400 to have the rear end modified for more travel like they did back in the day and make them competitive.
It's really no different to buying a aftermarket C&J or Profab frame with more suspension travel than the original frame..

[Nathan S]

It is my belief that the suspension limit rule for pre 78 is just removed. Same as the mounting points stuff. My argument is that any major raising of suspension lengths for pre 78 makes the bike handle so badly that it slows them down. Forks must be manufacture before 78.   

Not my experience. I built a YZ125D with a lengthened shock and 250D forks. It was limited back to 9" of travel, but sat like an Evo bike. It was brilliant everywhere.
Ditto my YZ125D with 125G forks (even though the G forks flex like drinking straws).

Anyone else got input on this?

[evo550]

Am I right in assuming the Evo rules you've written will now allow CR500 motors in Twin shock 250 chassis with 50mm magnum forks ?

[Ted]

Well just after paying big bucks for 9 inch travel shocks for Pre 78 to be made and forks to suit I won't be voting for 10 inches. I think that's understandable.

[Nathan S]

Am I right in assuming the Evo rules you've written will now allow CR500 motors in Twin shock 250 chassis with 50mm magnum forks ?

Engine Yes (as per Dave Tanner's comments in the other thread);
Forks No (as per 16.15.7a and 16.15.12.1).

I don't personally agree on the motor thing. I just went with what DT said in the other thread. It can be changed to limit motors and/or forks to being from Evo bikes.

[Ted]

Cannot you write NO parts to be used from a LINKAGED, WATER COOLED, DISC BRAKE bike

Lose his train of thought altogether

Basically what you are proposing is Pre 85 drum brake class and Pre 85 disk brake class

[Slakewell]

Given that the pre 78 Nats race on mostly smooth tracks having extra travel is mitigated and those bikes at the pointy end like Ted's RM with 9" would still be competitive. Focus on the fact that most bikes don't fit in the rules in standard trim and some wont modify there bikes to comply.

[Nathan S]

I would 16.15.7.(ba)  to "operationaly similar and visualy indistinguishable" other than that pretty much complete

Why?

[TM BILL]

I would actually like to see the shock mount rule removed altogether for pre 78 to allow bikes like the 75 Maico & TM Suzuki, 75/76 CR250 & KX250/400 to have the rear end modified for more travel like they did back in the day and make them competitive.
It's really no different to buying a aftermarket C&J or Profab frame with more suspension travel than the original frame..

Agreed it makes sense and it was done in the day

[Nathan S]

Cannot you write NO parts to be used from a LINKAGED, WATER COOLED, DISC BRAKE bike

Lose his train of thought altogether

Basically what you are proposing is Pre 85 drum brake class and Pre 85 disk brake class

Well, it is a Pre-86 drum brake, air-cooled, no-linkage class...

And it's not my proposal - I've been trying to leave my own opinions out of it. I went with the closest thing we've had to a clear answer on the unanswerable question about Evo.
Its a seperate discussion that DOES need to happen - but not in this thread.

[Ted]

I would actually like to see the shock mount rule removed altogether for pre 78 to allow bikes like the 75 Maico & TM Suzuki, 75/76 CR250 & KX250/400 to have the rear end modified for more travel like they did back in the day and make them competitive.
It's really no different to buying a aftermarket C&J or Profab frame with more suspension travel than the original frame..

Agreed it makes sense and it was done in the day

But doesn't it say OEM. If they require more travel buy a bike with it or buy a aftermarket frame. Cutting up mounts can only lead to a bitch class.

[Ted]

Given that the pre 78 Nats race on mostly smooth tracks having extra travel is mitigated and those bikes at the pointy end like Ted's RM with 9" would still be competitive. Focus on the fact that most bikes don't fit in the rules in standard trim and some wont modify there bikes to comply.

Mick, my bike didn't comply either. It only had 8 inches. 95% of the field would struggle to get anywhere near 9 inches standard. Euros may be different but they don't make up MOST of the field.

[oldfart]

Nathan .... I think it's all covered in 2.5.9.1   and  1.2.0.1