US Nats 2t eligible bikes?

[nom de guerre]

What bikes are eligible? Just the YZs.? Reason I ask is that if my '12 KTM 125 is valid, then I would generously allow someone to use it for 'Dilla.... (those days are long behind me!)

[Charles Owens]

2006-2009 YZ 125's
2006-2010 YZ 250's

2006 RM 250

2006 KX 250

2006-2007 CR 125/250

2006 125SX
2006-2011 250SX

[nom de guerre]

 I guess that seals it... Lame rules/list.. I can see slant. Thanks Charles.

[VintageBlueSmoke]

I can't find it now but I know I read it somewhere, that current year bikes of previously approved models are eligible.  Having said that, if you showed up with a KTM 450 EXC to run in the SX class (sans lights of course), they probably wouldn't say anything. Show up on an unlisted 125, and they'll thow the rule book at you!

[motoman356]

also to note the bike cannot be older than five years. so it would more look like

2007-2012 yz's

07,08 rms

and so on and so forth

[scotty dog]

How stupid!! Why cant ya just turn up with a dirt bike and race as long as it passes tech insepection and its not gunna fall apart??

[Watson777]

From the mouth of one AMA Official (not mentioning a name)
"Bikes older than 5 years are not eligible to race in pro racing because regardless of how you maintain it, it is no longer safe to ride at this level. On top of that if you are racing pro you shouldn't have a bike that old anyway."
That is the reply I got when I asked.

[scotty dog]

From the mouth of one AMA Official (not mentioning a name)
"Bikes older than 5 years are not eligible to race in pro racing because regardless of how you maintain it, it is no longer safe to ride at this level. On top of that if you are racing pro you shouldn't have a bike that old anyway."
That is the reply I got when I asked.

Oh OK, fair enough 

[Stusmoke]

From the mouth of one AMA Official (not mentioning a name)
"Bikes older than 5 years are not eligible to race in pro racing because regardless of how you maintain it, it is no longer safe to ride at this level. On top of that if you are racing pro you shouldn't have a bike that old anyway."
That is the reply I got when I asked.

Oh OK, fair enough 

Pft yeah perfect justification. OOhhh wait on... By LAW those tracks and organizations aren't in anyway shape or form responsible for any form of injury sustained on the grounds... Damn they almost nailed that lie. But hold on... I seem to recall a 1996 KX 125 DESTROYING the 250F class in Toowoomba several years ago. And the weirdest thing is it ran better and 15 bikes grenaded that night.

I pray for the day that someone finds a major constitutional violation in the AMA rules and sues the pants off them. I would fly to America to see them defend their asses with that kind of bs.

Oh, and I have by estimate 200 hours on my current piston. By estimate. still running like a... whats the word? 2 stroke.

If these machines are so inferior and pieces of crap, let us race them and prove you right. It gives me laughs to rant all this evidence at a four joke supporter and then get the reply: yeah well they're out of date; this is the era of the four strokes. hehehehe

[VintageBlueSmoke]

 " title="Angry" class="smiley">

OK, so the 5 year rule is not there for safety or anything. It is purely there so you have to ride a new bike (4$ or 2T). Manufacturers don't want to spend millions on racing only to have some punk show up on a 490 Maico and make them look bad. Racing, to the manufacturers, is just a means to an end (selling bikes). It's the same in many other sports dominated by the manufacturers. It wasn't so long ago that Toyota wasn't ALLOWED in NASCAR...

The AMA homologation rule, specifying what model and/or  brand is allowed or not, was put there because the manufacturers were spending hundreds of thousands of dollars building one off bikes (Works Bikes) and every one complained that if you were not on a manufacturers team, you couldn't compete. Many blamed this for the demise of the European motorcycle industry (the truth was the European economy was at fault and the unions took them down). This was the AMA trying to do a good thing, but as usual mucked it up. Racing still costs hundreds of thousands of dollars but in stead of it being 10 bikes, the cost is shared across the entire field of 40.

Speaking of the AMA trying to do a good thing and mucking it up...is the rule that allows 4$ to be double displacement (which by the way is an FIM rule and being subordinate to them, was adopted by the AMA). It really was a good idea at the time. It kept the doors open for many manufacturers in Europe for many years. It was rare to see the VOR, CCM, and Rickman machines in America but in Europe and England especially, there were hundreds of builders using big bore 4$ engines. These bikes could be competitive, but not dominant, in motocross in their day. The problem came in the '90's when metalurgical advancements allowed them to build a better 4$ and the rules were not adjusted to keep it balanced.

[TMKIWI]

I am sorry Stu , but if you have nearly 200 hours on your piston you must have the best YZ ever built.
Not gunna happen mate.

[Stusmoke]

I am sorry Stu , but if you have nearly 200 hours on your piston you must have the best YZ ever built.
Not gunna happen mate.

Simply not true. For whatever reason it may be, the engine is all mid range. everyones heard of people getting 200 hours of 450s. Its the same thing. The engine doesn't need to be revved high, it never gets revved high. It makes TONS of power in the 4-7 grand range. I usually keep it around 4 or 5. Higher revs just aren't necessary

" title="Angry" class="smiley">

OK, so the 5 year rule is not there for safety or anything. It is purely there so you have to ride a new bike (4$ or 2T). Manufacturers don't want to spend millions on racing only to have some punk show up on a 490 Maico and make them look bad. Racing, to the manufacturers, is just a means to an end (selling bikes). It's the same in many other sports dominated by the manufacturers. It wasn't so long ago that Toyota wasn't ALLOWED in NASCAR...

The AMA homologation rule, specifying what model and/or  brand is allowed or not, was put there because the manufacturers were spending hundreds of thousands of dollars building one off bikes (Works Bikes) and every one complained that if you were not on a manufacturers team, you couldn't compete. Many blamed this for the demise of the European motorcycle industry (the truth was the European economy was at fault and the unions took them down). This was the AMA trying to do a good thing, but as usual mucked it up. Racing still costs hundreds of thousands of dollars but in stead of it being 10 bikes, the cost is shared across the entire field of 40.

Speaking of the AMA trying to do a good thing and mucking it up...is the rule that allows 4$ to be double displacement (which by the way is an FIM rule and being subordinate to them, was adopted by the AMA). It really was a good idea at the time. It kept the doors open for many manufacturers in Europe for many years. It was rare to see the VOR, CCM, and Rickman machines in America but in Europe and England especially, there were hundreds of builders using big bore 4$ engines. These bikes could be competitive, but not dominant, in motocross in their day. The problem came in the '90's when metalurgical advancements allowed them to build a better 4$ and the rules were not adjusted to keep it balanced.

I agree. Both 2 strokes and four strokes were fine in the sport with double displacement until they churned out these high revving machines

[cnrcpla]

OK, so the 5 year rule is not there for safety or anything. It is purely there so you have to ride a new bike (4$ or 2T). Manufacturers don't want to spend millions on racing only to have some punk show up on a 490 Maico and make them look bad. Racing, to the manufacturers, is just a means to an end (selling bikes). It's the same in many other sports dominated by the manufacturers. It wasn't so long ago that Toyota wasn't ALLOWED in NASCAR...

The AMA homologation rule, specifying what model and/or  brand is allowed or not, was put there because the manufacturers were spending hundreds of thousands of dollars building one off bikes (Works Bikes) and every one complained that if you were not on a manufacturers team, you couldn't compete. Many blamed this for the demise of the European motorcycle industry (the truth was the European economy was at fault and the unions took them down). This was the AMA trying to do a good thing, but as usual mucked it up. Racing still costs hundreds of thousands of dollars but in stead of it being 10 bikes, the cost is shared across the entire field of 40.

Speaking of the AMA trying to do a good thing and mucking it up...is the rule that allows 4$ to be double displacement (which by the way is an FIM rule and being subordinate to them, was adopted by the AMA). It really was a good idea at the time. It kept the doors open for many manufacturers in Europe for many years. It was rare to see the VOR, CCM, and Rickman machines in America but in Europe and England especially, there were hundreds of builders using big bore 4$ engines. These bikes could be competitive, but not dominant, in motocross in their day. The problem came in the '90's when metalurgical advancements allowed them to build a better 4$ and the rules were not adjusted to keep it balanced.

Man... What happened to the days where you could show up at a track and race what ever in the hell you wanted and could get as far as you wanted with it...

I am sorry Stu , but if you have nearly 200 hours on your piston you must have the best YZ ever built.

I don't know man, I got quite a few hours on my YZ. Granted the top end was a mess when I actually did it, and all those hours were from trail riding like Stu pointed out as well, it is possible. But racing my bike now I will do a rebuild after every season, which is approximately 75 hours or so including practice.

[Stusmoke]

OK, so the 5 year rule is not there for safety or anything. It is purely there so you have to ride a new bike (4$ or 2T). Manufacturers don't want to spend millions on racing only to have some punk show up on a 490 Maico and make them look bad. Racing, to the manufacturers, is just a means to an end (selling bikes). It's the same in many other sports dominated by the manufacturers. It wasn't so long ago that Toyota wasn't ALLOWED in NASCAR...

The AMA homologation rule, specifying what model and/or  brand is allowed or not, was put there because the manufacturers were spending hundreds of thousands of dollars building one off bikes (Works Bikes) and every one complained that if you were not on a manufacturers team, you couldn't compete. Many blamed this for the demise of the European motorcycle industry (the truth was the European economy was at fault and the unions took them down). This was the AMA trying to do a good thing, but as usual mucked it up. Racing still costs hundreds of thousands of dollars but in stead of it being 10 bikes, the cost is shared across the entire field of 40.

Speaking of the AMA trying to do a good thing and mucking it up...is the rule that allows 4$ to be double displacement (which by the way is an FIM rule and being subordinate to them, was adopted by the AMA). It really was a good idea at the time. It kept the doors open for many manufacturers in Europe for many years. It was rare to see the VOR, CCM, and Rickman machines in America but in Europe and England especially, there were hundreds of builders using big bore 4$ engines. These bikes could be competitive, but not dominant, in motocross in their day. The problem came in the '90's when metalurgical advancements allowed them to build a better 4$ and the rules were not adjusted to keep it balanced.

Man... What happened to the days where you could show up at a track and race what ever in the hell you wanted and could get as far as you wanted with it...

I am sorry Stu , but if you have nearly 200 hours on your piston you must have the best YZ ever built.

I don't know man, I got quite a few hours on my YZ. Granted the top end was a mess when I actually did it, and all those hours were from trail riding like Stu pointed out as well, it is possible. But racing my bike now I will do a rebuild after every season, which is approximately 75 hours or so including practice.

Agree to both. You don't need to scream my bike out to get the power out of it. Infact even though it would probably make a few ponies less than it did on top, the tractability makes up for it. I ride things tight and don't use the top end ever. Thus, 200 hours is within reach

[VintageBlueSmoke]

Man... What happened to the days where you could show up at a track and race what ever in the hell you wanted and could get as far as you wanted with it...

It is generally termed the Production Rule; a group of rules that basically mean you have to use a production or "stock" bike. The idea was to prevent the factories from churing out 1 off bikes  that cost $100,000 and allowing privateers to race on an even footing. I remember in the early '80's that the 125 cylinders for guys like Tichenor were literally UNOBTAINABLE. When Tichenor lost his ride and tried to go it alone, he was left behind. That was a big reason he when to race in Japan.

The factories still dominated as they were able to thow money in the right places (their circumvention of the claiming rule, not protesting each other - only privateers who do well, etc.). But then guys like Mitch payton (actually....Mitch Payton) beat them at their own game.