79 CR250 Front End Conversion

[gdr]

For god sake let them have their forks ,if it helps them that much . The only thing that worries me is whats next ?.
Just don't see why they must have them ,the two highest placed crs at all the nats that I have been to run std forks .

[mustanggrahame]

To me evo rules are simple. Any part from any evo legal bike can go on any evo legal bike.
Eg 1979 CR can have 1981 YZ465 43mm forks, 44mm Fox forks or even 1984 40mm Husky forks, but not 1981 or later CR forks. Just like any pre85 legal bike can use parts from any other pre85 bike.
Just because something is or has been excepted in the past doesnt mean it has to be now or in the future.
This is the big problem for evolution. It is too open to interpretation. I have tried to explain my take on it, but understand if it is wide of the mark with regards to history.

[JohnnyO]

To me evo rules are simple. Any part from any evo legal bike can go on any evo legal bike.
Eg 1979 CR can have 1981 YZ465 43mm forks, 44mm Fox forks or even 1984 40mm Husky forks, but not 1981 or later CR forks. Just like any pre85 legal bike can use parts from any other pre85 bike.
Just because something is or has been excepted in the past doesnt mean it has to be now or in the future.
This is the big problem for evolution. It is too open to interpretation. I have tried to explain my take on it, but understand if it is wide of the mark with regards to history.

I understand what you're saying Grahame and the rules do need rewriting to make clearer but at the end of the day the class is healthy and the rules work and whether they're 81,82 or 83 conventional forks they all look and function the same...
It's not a big problem just a whole lot of noise on here

[evo550]

Be careful John. Just because Evo was or wasn't at the Thumpernats when the twin shock racing started, doesn't mean his argument is or isn't correct. And wasn't the support class at the Thumpernats called twin shock, not evolution? I rode in 4/stroke events and a friend had a husky in the twin shock. I remember thinking then that it was an odd concept (not having a cut off date).

Grahame 93-95 it was called twinshock then it changed to Evo so that Yamaha's could race.
The rules have always been the same since the beginning of Evo so if 82/83 forks were legal then why aren't they now?

Thumpernats??? What does that have to do with VMX?

[JohnnyO]

Be careful John. Just because Evo was or wasn't at the Thumpernats when the twin shock racing started, doesn't mean his argument is or isn't correct. And wasn't the support class at the Thumpernats called twin shock, not evolution? I rode in 4/stroke events and a friend had a husky in the twin shock. I remember thinking then that it was an odd concept (not having a cut off date).

Grahame 93-95 it was called twinshock then it changed to Evo so that Yamaha's could race.
The rules have always been the same since the beginning of Evo so if 82/83 forks were legal then why aren't they now?

Thumpernats??? What does that have to do with VMX?

Have you been under a rock? That's where the Evo class and the current rules originated!
Then in 98 Qvmx adopted the class and the same rules straight from the Thumper Nats!

[Paul552]

I have a 79 CR250 recently restored for the intension of racing it. I am wanting to upgrade the Front End. I was hoping members could give me some suggestions of conversions they have done which have worked well. I was thinking 43mm 480 forks, has anyone done that conversion?

Does anyone have anything available to buy as mentioned above.

Any feedback appreciated.

Thanks

PB

  11 pages

[evo550]

Really, I remember sitting at QVMX committee meetings, discussing the introduction of this new Evo class that Heaven was running......
but considering this is on the slippery slope to the dumbgeon, I'll leave you to it...my rock awaits.

[JohnnyO]

I have a 79 CR250 recently restored for the intension of racing it. I am wanting to upgrade the Front End. I was hoping members could give me some suggestions of conversions they have done which have worked well. I was thinking 43mm 480 forks, has anyone done that conversion?

Does anyone have anything available to buy as mentioned above.

Any feedback appreciated.

Thanks

PB

  11 pages

Most of it useless though!! 

[JohnnyO]

Really, I remember sitting at QVMX committee meetings, discussing the introduction of this new Evo class that Heaven was running......
but considering this is on the slippery slope to the dumbgeon, I'll leave you to it...my rock awaits.

I'll guarantee you mate that it started at the Thumper Nats, Ballard rang Rick Doughty in the US to get the class rules and then spoke to Geoff Holmes and myself about it.
Remember I was the one on the track racing it and you were in the committee room...

[HeavenVMX]

To me evo rules are simple. Any part from any evo legal bike can go on any evo legal bike.
Eg 1979 CR can have 1981 YZ465 43mm forks, 44mm Fox forks or even 1984 40mm Husky forks, but not 1981 or later CR forks. Just like any pre85 legal bike can use parts from any other pre85 bike.
Just because something is or has been excepted in the past doesnt mean it has to be now or in the future.
This is the big problem for evolution. It is too open to interpretation. I have tried to explain my take on it, but understand if it is wide of the mark with regards to history.

I understand what you're saying Grahame and the rules do need rewriting to make clearer but at the end of the day the class is healthy and the rules work and whether they're 81,82 or 83 conventional forks they all look and function the same...
It's not a big problem just a whole lot of noise on here

So to clarify the secret rule is now conventional forks with drum brakes? This secret rule stuff is hard to keep up with

[JohnnyO]

To me evo rules are simple. Any part from any evo legal bike can go on any evo legal bike.
Eg 1979 CR can have 1981 YZ465 43mm forks, 44mm Fox forks or even 1984 40mm Husky forks, but not 1981 or later CR forks. Just like any pre85 legal bike can use parts from any other pre85 bike.
Just because something is or has been excepted in the past doesnt mean it has to be now or in the future.
This is the big problem for evolution. It is too open to interpretation. I have tried to explain my take on it, but understand if it is wide of the mark with regards to history.

I understand what you're saying Grahame and the rules do need rewriting to make clearer but at the end of the day the class is healthy and the rules work and whether they're 81,82 or 83 conventional forks they all look and function the same...
It's not a big problem just a whole lot of noise on here

So to clarify the secret rule is now conventional forks with drum brakes? This secret rule stuff is hard to keep up with

It's not a secret if you've been racing the Evo class for a number of years or bothered to attend this year's Nats, it's only a secret to the johnny come lately's who think they made the rules.

[mustanggrahame]

Why conventional forks only? If, as the example used, 1983 43mm Showas are allowed, who can tell me why drum braked WP USD forks off a 1984 KTM are not allowed?

[gdr]

Because they are only protecting them self's running the forks they have fitted .

[JohnnyO]

Grahame no Evo bike came out with upside down forks but they did come out with 43mm conventionals.

[JohnnyO]

Do you even think upside down forks would look right on a twin shock Evo bike?