Clearing my name and my bike

[maicomc490t]

Gentlemen,

For my money I couldn't care less if someone did or didn't comply TO THE LETTER with the MA rules ços even if I added another 12"to my bike it wouldn't help me one bit.

At the 'pointy' end things may be different however and I guess there can be some angst when someone may be suspected of throwing the rule book out the window but from what Brad and others has said it seems nothing earth shattering has gone on here.

This thread has however prompted me to ask one important question which Mr Tanner or other MA experts may be able to clarify.

Why, and irrespective of any brand, does MA fix the suspension at mandatory limits? If a bike WAS MANUFACTURED AND SOLD with suspension of a particular length why in hells name should the travel be limited by the fitting of spacers/restrictors? Surely if a bike could be taken from a crate back in '77 for example and have shall we say 235mm in stated factory literature it was OK to race back in the day, or did MA tell owners to restrict the travel (they didn't) ? The suspension travel rule should simply state that bikes should NOT EXCEED the original specs of any given model - easy!

Someone from the MA hierarchy care to enlighten the great unwashed?

Dave Mac 

[paul]

exactly

[maicomc490t]

Just to confuse myself I posted on another thread relating to this one and expanded on things a bit to take in PERIOD modifications eg Simons and Fox. Still a pretty simple formula I reckon but FFS lets lighten up - most of us are weekend hacks. If the full on guys are desperate for plastic then maybe MA can introduce grading for VMX just to make it even more difficult for organisers...............

Dave Mac 

[Graeme M]

I must admit I belong to the school of thought that says it's just for fun so why get all tied up over it? But then I start to think of the fact that it does have to have some rules to prevent people doing the wrong thing. If we have a club series or a National event, there is a percentage of people relatively serious about winning. For example if I decided that next year I am going to attend every HEAVEN meet and win Pre 78 125, then the smart way would be to buy me a 1977 RM125B and go set it up to go fast and handle good. Without rules it's a simple matter for me to add every modern device known to man to improve the power (maybe a later cylinder and head to help that cause), a decent swingarm (maybe a nice alloy one of different dimensions to make the best of the new long travel shocks I bought), and perhaps some N model forks to round out the package. pretty soon I am not racing a 1977 RM125B. Is that really fair for anyone else who might have wanted to win that class (imagining for a moment that I can ride at least as well as Noel and Nathan).

No it isn't.

But having a rule that says I can't modify my bike to have more travel than it came standard with doesn't work in pre 78. If I wanted to race Pre 78 Open, I can get me a Maico with 9" of travel, or even a YZ400D with about the same. But my TT500C in the back shed is a bit light on in that department with just 7.5" at the front, and about 6.5" down the back. Now, a decent aftermarket swingarm and some good shocks and a set of YZ forks and I am away with 9". Or I would have been without that pesky suspension limit rule.

So, it's just not simple, even when you try to make it so. I don't know the answers, beyond a comprehensive coverage of what's OK and what isn't.

I like Firko's suggestion on the other thread of a committee to rule on eligibility. Perhaps this segment of the sport develops its own compendium of eligibility criteria. It can be amended/added to as necessary following meetings by the committee. Over time, the ruless become more and more suited to what actually happens. And grey areas become fewer. And people can see exactly what is eligible and what isn't. In other words, the rules aren't a set and forget formula. The basic criteria are set out, then the lists of accepted mods, bikes, and so on are described in detail. A big job, but it'd help immensely.

By the way, I think there should be no suspension limits for Pre 78, or at least a sensible one. What was the normal maximum in those days, maybe 11"? So, let's just set to 12" and be done with it. If you want to make your stock framed TT500C have 12" of travel, I don't think you'll have to worry too much about whether it even works, you'll be too busy fighting the geometry. And if you are serious about winning, then get a nice Maico or Husky or whatever. I'm not going to lose any sleep over whether or not my 75 RM is competitive and I'll chuckle pretty loudly if I actually managed to beat a 10" travel Pre 78 125!!

[firko]

Why, and irrespective of any brand, does MA fix the suspension at mandatory limits? If a bike WAS MANUFACTURED AND SOLD with suspension of a particular length why in hells name should the travel be limited by the fitting of spacers/restrictors? Surely if a bike could be taken from a crate back in '77 for example and have shall we say 235mm in stated factory literature it was OK to race back in the day, or did MA tell owners to restrict the travel (they didn't) ? The suspension travel rule should simply state that bikes should NOT EXCEED the original specs of any given model - easy!

Dave I can offer up a bit of history as to how the pre '75 7" and 4" came about.
In the late 70's/early 80's The Brits started pre 65 motocross racing and they used suspension limits based on the average for the era which came at 7" front and 4" rear. A few years later Dick Mann was formulating a usable set of rules for his proposed Dick Mann Vintage Rally events (the birth mother of AHRMA racing) and he used the already in place British rules including the suspension limits and those of the California Vintage Racing Group (CVRG) who had previously been running low key pre '75 events including the legendary "CZ World Championships" in Southern California. The big mistake in Dicks master plan was to assume that all pre 75 bikes had around 7" and 4" of travel. He had been mistaken in his belief that the LTR Maico was a 75 model so as a stopgap measure they insisted that all bikes must conform to the suspension limits and that Maicos and any other bikes with more suspension (KTM/Penton, AJS Stormer, Montesa, CCM and more) must be fitted with limiters. This was initially intended as a stopgap measure until something better was thought of but....as these things often go, 25 years later the limiter rule is still in place in the USA and Australia. The Poms in forewarned wisdom created their cutoff as pre '74.

I've change my thoughts over limiters as the sport has progressed. At first I was in favour of the limiters as I considered it'd create a more level playing field. I was worried that without the limiters we'd get fields full of 6" rear travel Maicos, destroying the 4" travel concept and dominating the class. As it turned out, as good as the Maicos are, they didn't dominate with or without restrictors. I now feel that these bikes should be allowed to race as manufactured, my reasoning being that parity will never be able to be achieved. There will always be bikes that are better than others, that's the way racing's always been. Should we limit the performance of the CR125 Honda M because it is so much better than the opposition?  Of course not so why penalise Maico and the others because they were a tad more advanced than their peers?  Having said that, the rule is still there and for that reason I respect it and have fitted limiters to my '74 Maicos.

I believe the 9" limit in pre 78 was introduced by the AHRMA (and later MA as the pre '78 rules are literally lifted from the AHRMA book) for thre same parity reasons. Once again I don't thing enough research went into it which left a number of bikes ineligible unless restricted. A far more reasonable limit would be 10" to allow the majority of pre 78 bikes to easily comply.

[AjayVMX]

By the way, I think there should be no suspension limits for Pre 78, or at least a sensible one. What was the normal maximum in those days, maybe 11"? So, let's just set to 12" and be done with it. If you want to make your stock framed TT500C have 12" of travel, I don't think you'll have to worry too much about whether it even works, you'll be too busy fighting the geometry. And if you are serious about winning, then get a nice Maico or Husky or whatever. I'm not going to lose any sleep over whether or not my 75 RM is competitive and I'll chuckle pretty loudly if I actually managed to beat a 10" travel Pre 78 125!!

Graham, the actual point of pre-78 was that 1978 was the year that the first truly long travel bikes appeared, such as the Honda CR250R.  Pre-78 is a class specifically for bikes in the so-called "first generation" of longer travel suspension systems, when compared to pre-75 bikes.  So the limit of 9" was mandated as a pretty typical limit of what had been around up to the release of the truly long travel bikes like the CR250R.

The issue really is that the artbitrary 9" limit, if applied literally, is too limiting (pun not intended).  Maybe a simple change of that dimension in the GCRs to say 245mm would be a better way to go.  This would limit the bikes to the "first generation" suspension systems, but allow some previously excluded 1977 models to be used without having to shorten their suspension from stock.

Edit:  It seems like we have the same idea Firko... 

[Ji Gantor]

From all the Pre 78 Maico's I have seen none of them have the original 77 forks.
I am sure there are some that have 77 forks.
I reason that most have been changed to 78 or 79 forks is the seals for a true 77 fork are very hard to get or don't work.
The 77 fork had a one piece fork seal, mud wiper.
I have purchased these new from a supplier in the States and they leaked.
The 76, 78 and 79 all have the traditional seperate seal and mud wiper.
When I looked Brad's bike over early in the year I noticed that it had 78 forks on it.

I have studied the 77 forks and can tell all this.
At the begining of the year Maico used up all their 76 forks and by half way through the 77 model run they introduced the 77.5 forks. These are the ones with the combined seal/wiper.
Leak Proof Fork seals state that their seals are for the 1977 1/2.

Les at Mainly Maico had never heard about this when I asked him about seals.
I told him the dimensions and he told me that I could not measure.
The dimensions on the Leak Proof Fork Seals packet are what mine measured.
When I sent him all this info Les told me "Oh is that why I have sent the standard seals to a few guys and they have told me they did not fit".
This is not in any way having a go at Les. This is just to illustrate the point that most owners don't know what they have. Paul Chippendale would know about this stuff I am sure Though I have never asked him.

Brad did not win because he has a few extra mm's of travel that he could not use, he won because he is fast just like Glen Bell.

Are Brad's post 77 forks legal. They can only be legal I understand if they were a follow over from the prievious year.
The 78 had a few modifications to the 77 so I will let the scrutineers of our sport judge. How can one tell what year a pair of forks were made. Like Glen Bell's bike. If they were fitted with WP's the WP's have the year stamped into the top of them. How hard would it be to grind that stamp off, how hard would it be then to date the forks while on the line.

Ji

[Mick D]

This is Australia VMX we are talking about. A gift to our next generation. Why not make it easier on them and ourselves. 
A truer depiction of our VMX history is from bikes that were commercially available in Aussie Shop fronts at the time, and were raced as such in that era. Do we need all of this carry on rules from other countries that basically say we have to find the resources to molest our once politically correct machines to comply with their thoughts on the matter?
It is hard enough to find time; money and recourses to just make it to the line. Who wants to disassemble and cut down precious damper tubes, weld and braze, then true between lathe centres? Fit restrictors? Well? Not this little white duck I can tell you! All in the end to change the manufacturers intended geometry of suspension design, that was standard and accepted in the era.

I thank you Firko for your following post. It is worthy of Websters! I now know how we were lumbered with the present system.

Use any machine available at club level. Who cares? Until you are holding a trophy, at the nationals. Lookout if you haven’t taken the time to molest your darling first(bike that is)!

Why, and irrespective of any brand, does MA fix the suspension at mandatory limits? If a bike WAS MANUFACTURED AND SOLD with suspension of a particular length why in hells name should the travel be limited by the fitting of spacers/restrictors? Surely if a bike could be taken from a crate back in '77 for example and have shall we say 235mm in stated factory literature it was OK to race back in the day, or did MA tell owners to restrict the travel (they didn't) ? The suspension travel rule should simply state that bikes should NOT EXCEED the original specs of any given model - easy!

Dave I can offer up a bit of history as to how the pre '75 7" and 4" came about.
In the late 70's/early 80's The Brits started pre 65 motocross racing and they used suspension limits based on the average for the era which came at 7" front and 4" rear. A few years later Dick Mann was formulating a usable set of rules for his proposed Dick Mann Vintage Rally events (the birth mother of AHRMA racing) and he used the already in place British rules including the suspension limits and those of the California Vintage Racing Group (CVRG) who had previously been running low key pre '75 events including the legendary "CZ World Championships" in Southern California. The big mistake in Dicks master plan was to assume that all pre 75 bikes had around 7" and 4" of travel. He had been mistaken in his belief that the LTR Maico was a 75 model so as a stopgap measure they insisted that all bikes must conform to the suspension limits and that Maicos and any other bikes with more suspension (KTM/Penton, AJS Stormer, Montesa, CCM and more) must be fitted with limiters. This was initially intended as a stopgap measure until something better was thought of but....as these things often go, 25 years later the limiter rule is still in place in the USA and Australia. The Poms in forewarned wisdom created their cutoff as pre '74.

I've change my thoughts over limiters as the sport has progressed. At first I was in favour of the limiters as I considered it'd create a more level playing field. I was worried that without the limiters we'd get fields full of 6" rear travel Maicos, destroying the 4" travel concept and dominating the class. As it turned out, as good as the Maicos are, they didn't dominate with or without restrictors. I now feel that these bikes should be allowed to race as manufactured, my reasoning being that parity will never be able to be achieved. There will always be bikes that are better than others, that's the way racing's always been. Should we limit the performance of the CR125 Honda M because it is so much better than the opposition?  Of course not so why penalise Maico and the others because they were a tad more advanced than their peers?  Having said that, the rule is still there and for that reason I respect it and have fitted limiters to my '74 Maicos.

I believe the 9" limit in pre 78 was introduced by the AHRMA (and later MA as the pre '78 rules are literally lifted from the AHRMA book) for thre same parity reasons. Once again I don't thing enough research went into it which left a number of bikes ineligible unless restricted. A far more reasonable limit would be 10" to allow the majority of pre 78 bikes to easily comply.

Rules aren't just made to be broken, they also exist as a base point for amendment

[bazza]

Brad,storm in a tea cup you one because your fast.Hope to see you back in Unzud again.

[JC]

I believe that we would  actually prolong the life of the pre-75 class(es) if we didn't restrict the LTR models (Maico, MAG, Stormer, KTM etc) & ALSO allowed non-LTR models to run longer stroke shocks.

And wouldn't we all want those classes lives prolonged?

Most non-LTR pre75 bikes ran a leverage ratio around 1.25:1 (wheel travel to shock stroke), so if a 4.5"/5" stroke shock was allowed for them we'd have a reasonably level playing field of about 6" rear travel for all, which is much more agreeable to aging bodies than insisting we pummel said bodies w 4" travel.  Longer stroke shocks were readily available pre-75.

I also thoroughly agree w Dave & others allowing pre78 Husky/Maicos etc to run what they were sold w back them w'out restrictors.

[Mick D]

I actually believe that we would  prelong the life of the pre-75 class(es) if we didn't restrict the LTR models (Maico, MAG, Stormer, KTM etc) & ALSO allowed non-LTR models to run longer stroke shocks.

And wouldn't we all want those classes lives prolonged?

Most non-LTR pre75 bikes ran a leverage ratio around 1.25:1 (wheel travel to shock stroke), so if a 4.5"/5" stroke shock was allowed for them we'd have a reasonably level playing field of about 6-6.5" rear travel for all, which is much more agreeable to aging bodies than insisting we pummel said bodies w 4" travel.  Longer stroke shocks were readily available pre-75.

I also agree w allowing pre78 Husky/Maicos etc to run what they were sold w back them w'out restrictors.

Great thoughts JC

I am sure that survival of our sport is as paramont to the survival of our valuble darlins(machines) and battle weary bodies.

[Tankslapper]

As a collective group, could we get MA to look at changing this rule. I have not had anything to do with them so not sure what is possible ?

[Marc.com]

I have a creeping feeling that the guys who are winning generally could do it whether they had 9" of suspension or bloody 4" .... so a few fractions here or there I don't think was ever the point of the GCRs, more that these pre 78 bikes need love to and if they have a competitive class then people will take the time to preserve then.

Its really not in the spirit of the GCRs to send people packing if their brake rod is in a slightly different position.

[Graeme M]

I agree completely Ajay. I know that the class is aimed at the 'first gen LTR', but it seems trying to set a suspension limit is a bit arbitrary as we know at the time things were all over the place and there was no shirtage of people building bikes with 10 or 11" of travel.

So if we must have a limit, set it to one that lets all OEM bikes of the era in, and allows some modification to those of shorter travel (eg I could add B forks and longer shocks to my 75 RM if I wanted to).

The 75-77 spread covers a wide range - 75 TM250s to 77 YZ250s, so we will never have a level playing field as such...

[motomaniac]

I agree completely Ajay. I know that the class is aimed at the 'first gen LTR', but it seems trying to set a suspension limit is a bit arbitrary as we know at the time things were all over the place and there was no shirtage of people building bikes with 10 or 11" of travel.

So if we must have a limit, set it to one that lets all OEM bikes of the era in, and allows some modification to those of shorter travel (eg I could add B forks and longer shocks to my 75 RM if I wanted to).

The 75-77 spread covers a wide range - 75 TM250s to 77 YZ250s, so we will never have a level playing field as such...

Whats the issue - as the GCR's are currently you can add B forks and longer shocks if you want to.