Rule re-write.

[Nathan S]

On the shock mount thing:

The Pre-75 class is supposed to be about the short travel era, rather than the year 1974.
We all know that in the mid 70s, lots of bikes had their shock mounts modified for longer travel. That's absolutely part of MX history, but the idea of the Pre-75 class is to represent the era BEFORE that started happening. This is why GP Maicos, 74 KTMs and YZ-Bs need to have their travel shortened to race in Pre-75 - even though they meet the age cut off.

So I have no issue with the "stock shock locations" rule for Pre-75.

Obviously, for the Evo and newer eras, the need to move shock positions around has disappeared.

Which leaves Pre-78 as the class that needs more thought - this is the era where shock mounts were moved, often. To prohibit that modification now, is historically INaccurate. It's ironic that an original, unmodified-since-it-was-last-raced old race bike doesn't fit anywhere in the VMX rules.

Then again, the rules have been like that for a while - has it actually been a problem for anyone? Or are we discussing a hypothetical that doesn't really exist?

[JohnnyO]

Nathan I do know of a couple of pre 78 and Evo bikes with the shock mounts moved, it's just that no one has picked up on it. Would hate to see them excluded because they are unaware of the rule and they are nicely done mods hence not looking out of place and also going un noticed.
I agree 100% pre 75 should have the shock mount rule due to the 4" travel requirement.

[FourstrokeForever]

Some very good points there Michael Moore and that OEM rule doesn't sit well with me either, most people don't even understand its meaning anyway.
Some people on here are killing off the history of our sport by not wanting bikes to be setup as they were thru the 70's, but instead wanting every bike to appear as it did in the sales brochure..
Most people don't even know the shock mount rule exists so to remove the rule is going to make no difference, but it will allow the smart bike builder to perform a cool period suspension mod if they wish to. I think that rule should also be excluded from Evo as well, there are other rules stating no later single shock frame can be modified to twin shock specs.
You're totally dreaming if you think scores of people are going to rush out and buy a cheap welder and do a bodgy modification on their frame.
There is the odd bike out there racing now in both pre 78 and Evo with modified shock mounts that I'm sure the owner is unaware of the ruling and you nazis on here haven't even noticed and I'm not about to tell you either.. To exclude them would be cruel when they've done such a nice job with their bikes!

Well said Johnny and Micheal Moore. Bikes of all types have been getting modified since the day they rolled out of a factory. Many people had different ideas on how to make a bike work better. Some time it worked, other times it made the bike no better at all. The point is as Micheal Moore stated. We are not entering a bike into a concours d'elegance. We build bikes to race and look good while we're at it. Yet it seems the boffins at MA want us to build a bike exactly as it came out of the dealership so we can then flog it on a race track. Many bikes builds of yesteryear had modified shock positions and swingarms. C&J, HPF, JBS, CCM, Hindall, and many more built custom frames for their customers. DG, FMF, Profab, Whitline, Wheelsmith and others made specialist parts so the punters could easily modify their suspension and motors without the need for a high level mechanic or engineer. All you had to do was bolt it on and sort the bike to your liking.
Period "trick" bikes make a whole world of sense to me. And they are great to look at.

[FourstrokeForever]

On the shock mount thing:

The Pre-75 class is supposed to be about the short travel era, rather than the year 1974.
We all know that in the mid 70s, lots of bikes had their shock mounts modified for longer travel. That's absolutely part of MX history, but the idea of the Pre-75 class is to represent the era BEFORE that started happening. This is why GP Maicos, 74 KTMs and YZ-Bs need to have their travel shortened to race in Pre-75 - even though they meet the age cut off.

So I have no issue with the "stock shock locations" rule for Pre-75.

Obviously, for the Evo and newer eras, the need to move shock positions around has disappeared.

Which leaves Pre-78 as the class that needs more thought - this is the era where shock mounts were moved, often. To prohibit that modification now, is historically INaccurate. It's ironic that an original, unmodified-since-it-was-last-raced old race bike doesn't fit anywhere in the VMX rules.

Then again, the rules have been like that for a while - has it actually been a problem for anyone? Or are we discussing a hypothetical that doesn't really exist?

I agree with the 7"and 4" for pre75 Nathan. It wouldn't matter where you put the shocks anyway, unless you wanted to jack up the rear of the bike for sharper steering.

I am interested in the Pre78 rules though. As you say, to prohibit shock mount modification is historically inaccurate. And if someone wants to modify a 75, 76, or 77 model bike so that it complies with the 9" rule, great. More bikes out of sheds and onto the start line 

[TM BILL]

This would have to be the most positive thread on here in memory  People working together , sharing thoughts and ideas and remaining civil and open minded .

Only good can come of it and hopefully more people take the time to read it and add their input .

[Michael Moore]

This is why GP Maicos, 74 KTMs and YZ-Bs need to have their travel shortened to race in Pre-75 - even though they meet the age cut off.

Isn't the amount of travel the important factor here?

If someone buys a 1973 CZ that had the shocks moved up at some point, requiring mods to both the subframe and swing arm, and they want to race it in the proper 4" rear travel class, why exclude them until such time as they find another bike/pay someone for extensive "return to stock" de-modifications?   The bike is period-legal. Let them put on short-travel dampers and run, as long as the wheel doesn't move more than 4".

I've seen bikes like that CZ at AHRMA races.  The scrutineers will check the wheel travel and if it 4" or less, "have fun in your pre-75 race, next in line please".

If you are allowing the Maico, AJS etc to run in pre-75 with "moved up by OEM" mounts but with travel-limited dampers then extend the same consideration to all the DIY modified bikes too.

You get another period bike out there and another happy racer who has no competitive advantage over the guy on the stock bike next to him.

cheers,
Michael

[firko]

The Pre-75 class is supposed to be about the short travel era, rather than the year 1974.
We all know that in the mid 70s, lots of bikes had their shock mounts modified for longer travel. That's absolutely part of MX history, but the idea of the Pre-75 class is to represent the era BEFORE that started happening. This is why GP Maicos, 74 KTMs and YZ-Bs need to have their travel shortened to race in Pre-75 - even though they meet the age cut off.

So I have no issue with the "stock shock locations" rule for Pre-75.

Obviously, for the Evo and newer eras, the need to move shock positions around has disappeared.

Which leaves Pre-78 as the class that needs more thought - this is the era where shock mounts were moved, often. To prohibit that modification now, is historically INaccurate. It's ironic that an original, unmodified-since-it-was-last-raced old race bike doesn't fit anywhere in the VMX rules.

Then again, the rules have been like that for a while - has it actually been a problem for anyone? Or are we discussing a hypothetical that doesn't really exist?

I totally agree with the stock mount stipulation for pre '75 and older classes but I don't think it's relevant for pre 78 because of the reasons Nathan stated. Many racers in that period were riding suspension upgraded pre 75 bikes and, because the pre 78 era was still one of rapid frame development and experimentation, all sorts of set-ups were being tried. As an example, Wayne Morris a bloke in my club was experimenting with Citroen car suspension components and using cut down external spring Maico forks on the rear of his '75 400 Maico (a la Harley Davidson). How about......Rear suspension mounting points can be modified as long as the 9" (10") travel limit is observed.

This would have to be the most positive thread on here in memory  People working together , sharing thoughts and ideas and remaining civil and open minded .
Only good can come of it and hopefully more people take the time to read it and add their input .
 

Hallelujah Bill.....this is five years plus overdue. Ironically, I believe it had to be initiated by somebody who had nothing to do with the original rule development (Drakie, me, DT and others) It's a fresh approach, new eyes thing that is sorely needed.

If you are allowing the Maico, AJS etc to run in pre-75 with "moved up by OEM" mounts but with travel-limited dampers then extend the same consideration to all the DIY modified bikes too

You make a good point Michael but I think that seeing that the pre 75 class has been around for over twenty years and while we saw a number of 'barn find' bikes with modified suspension points turn up in the early days, those guys quickly 'legalised' their bikes to the point that today it's a rare occurrence (if ever) if a pre 75 bike with moved suspension points shows up here in Oz.

More tonight

[Nathan S]

OK, so what if we:
1. Add a clause to the Pre-78 regs that says:
"Machines in the Pre-78 category are exempt from 16.15.7d, and may have the shock absorber mounts moved, providing the total wheel travel does not exceed 9 inches".

And/or

2. Add a clause in the Evo regs that says:
"Machines in the Evo category are exempt from 16.15.7d, but may not alter the number of mounting points".

[GMC]

2 points I would like to make.

#1 Stay focused
We have had similar discussions over the years but they have always been dragged down with too many opinions on changing this and changing that.
The intent here is to change the wording so the rules will be easier to understand and take out any double meanings and personal interpretations.

Allowing period water cooled heads etc. to pre 78 certainly has its merits but trying to change too much at once will see it all fail.
If your bike isn’t running right you don’t change the carby, jets, ignition and exhaust all in one hit because you will end up chasing your tail.
You work on one thing at a time to eliminate the problems.

#2 Detail actual changes
Trying to read the new version against the old version seems all a bit much to take in easily.
I believe the bureaucracy of MA will want to deal with changing each paragraph line by line.

If you can write it in a way that outlines which rules you’re going to move where and which ones you’re going to rewrite then we will have something that we can all submit to MA

Bagging out MA as them making us adhere to their rules is wrong.
The rules are there for us, they won’t change things for what may seem like a few rebels but if there is unity in the agreement of what needs to be changed then it has more chance of getting passed

[supersenior 50]

I am relieved to see this thread is taking a turn from the usual pre nats hysteria and bashing of volunteer officials, towards some rational thought.
We should all be able to understand the spirit of vintage MX and the basic rationale behind the various classes.
Generally rules become more and more complex as more people try to push the envelope and go outside the spiritof it.
I have been in MX for over 50 years as a competitor and office bearer, and 20 years in VMX.
Every Nats Ive been to has had eligibility issues, nearly always brought about by someone pushing the envelope and trying to rewright history for their own agenda. Fortunately the bad old days when personal issues rather than bike issues were sometimes the case, we are lucky with the Commissioners we've had over recent years. Communication direct with Commissioners has surely got to be more productive than rabble rousing on this forum
For all it's perceived faults, in my recent experience I have found the Commission, MQ and MA generally helpfull and supportive in running major events
I have been very heavily involved in organising 2011 CDT, 2012 CMX and 2013 CMX Nationals, and support by officials both paid and volunteer has been excellant.
The drama starts on this forum a month or so leading up to the event, often pre-empting a problem that doesnt exist, or valid issues that should be sorted way earlier.
Come actual scrutineering and it is a storm in a teacup and usually common sence applies. However you can bet that we'll go through it all again next Nats.
The reality is that these issues of forks etc make no differance performance wise to 90% of us punters out there. I could have super duper forks, titanium swing arm and carbon fibre bodywork and bloody Vern would still beat me on his Pre 65 basically standard engined Triumph.
The 10% hot shots in reality dont need, questionable non period parts.
Brad V B is currently arguably the winningest rider in VMX and his bikes are very well prepared, but in the spirit of our sport.
Don't hammer me with specifics, I am talking generally

[Nathan S]

GMC, you're well on the money as usual/for a change...

WRT the line-by-line changes, that mentality is what makes the rules so damn confusing and messy...
The PRC regs that I linked earlier are a classic example of that - the original version wasn't too bad, but they get more wordy and more garbled every year. Those regs are part of my motivation for the tidy up of the CMX regs.

Sometimes the best way to clean your room is to move everything out, and then put back in the bits that are needed.

[Mick D]

You da man Nathan, great going and diplomacy

I found GMC's post well worth consideration and reading twice, very note worthy.

You can catch more flies with honey, than with vinegar.

[GMC]

WRT the line-by-line changes, that mentality is what makes the rules so damn confusing and messy...

Sometimes the best way to clean your room is to move everything out, and then put back in the bits that are needed.

I totally agree, however I can’t foresee a large bureaucratic organization thinking that way.

If you go to lengths to point out all the current problems and how the complete replacement will work better you might have a chance...
however..
I think you would be best to tackle it rule by rule stating why there is a problem with the rule and how it will improve functionality by moving  / replacing the rule.

Glad to be wrong

[Nathan S]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that MA's powers-that-be will pretty much rubber-stamp anything that has the support of the relevant commission and the punters.

(Not saying this has either yet, but we seem to be on the right track, at least)

[GMC]

Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe if enough punters back it then MA will take it seriously.
Then it is up to the commissioners, some of who may not be relevant (classic road race for instance, not too sure on this)

When you think you have all the bugs ironed out then I suggest you run it by the relevant commissioners to get their take on it before it is submitted to MA

If they are all in agreement with it then it has a good chance of being passed.

Once you get to this stage then we can all copy and paste to submit it to MA

If there are lots of people submitting lots of different versions then it will probably fall in a heap.