79 CR250 Front End Conversion

[mustanggrahame]

Just using this as an example. No evo bike came out with 43mm Showas. Also looks have nothing to do with the argument.  A 1984 495 KTM looks like a twin shock one except for the rear end.

[JohnnyO]

Just using this as an example. No evo bike came out with 43mm Showas. Also looks have nothing to do with the argument.  A 1984 495 KTM looks like a twin shock one except for the rear end.

No Evo bike came out with White Power forks either..

[gdr]

Yeh and no cr250 came out with 81 ,82 and 83 model fork ether

[Shane W]

Again I say this has got out of hand. It all started with a guy asking about forks, I stated an answer to him that it was legal to run the Honda 43mm forks but people are trying to change that and now all hell has broken loose.

Ok I see it under the current rules 3 points,

There is no special rule we are hiding it is the rule, they (82 Honda Forks) are from an era of racing defined by the fact that that a 84 Husky is eligible to race in evo. question 1 what is an era is answered

They are a straight bolt on part without cutting welding and use all Honda OEM parts (including the front wheel, axle and brake). Question 2 answered

The rule as written only excludes Linkage suspension, disc brakes and I have not fitted these, the fact that the bike the forks are from do have these is not relevant the rule does not read that way and anyone who is reading that into it is doing so to suit themselves question 3 answered

Now the question to Ted and the others is to put forward a case that has a rule to back it up that they are not legal. now look at the way the current (and the rules that have not changed for some time) are written.

I have an email from Bruce McFarland from 2006 where he pointed out to me that he ran these forks on all his bikes and they were legal to do so. So Heaven VMX that sort of shoots a hole in the QLD theory.

I am not the greatest motocross rider even as a young guy I was at best a mid pack C grade rider so I am not doing it to win a plastic trophy I have enough of them from my time Kart and road racing days. I fit the forks as they look good and I enjoy riding the bike with them.

I also don't agree with 20 year old kids racing VMX to smash the 50 year olds and win that much sort after 15 dollar trophy but there is no rule against that and as I said currently no one has put up a reason under the current rules as to why I cannot run these forks.

Gentleman put for facts and not your own personal agenda from here on.

[Ted]

Who wrote the EVO rules we are using today ?

Was it Doughty, Ballard, Applegren, Holmes, Kittle or Tanner?

[William Doe]

Again I say this has got out of hand. It all started with a guy asking about forks, I stated an answer to him that it was legal to run the Honda 43mm forks but people are trying to change that and now all hell has broken loose.

Ok I see it under the current rules 3 points,

There is no special rule we are hiding it is the rule, they (82 Honda Forks) are from an era of racing defined by the fact that that a 84 Husky is eligible to race in evo. question 1 what is an era is answered

They are a straight bolt on part without cutting welding and use all Honda OEM parts (including the front wheel, axle and brake). Question 2 answered

The rule as written only excludes Linkage suspension, disc brakes and I have not fitted these, the fact that the bike the forks are from do have these is not relevant the rule does not read that way and anyone who is reading that into it is doing so to suit themselves question 3 answered

Now the question to Ted and the others is to put forward a case that has a rule to back it up that they are not legal. now look at the way the current (and the rules that have not changed for some time) are written.

This post IMHO puts forward the best case for the defence  the argument that we have been doing it forever doesn't make it right but explained like this its hard to argue with .

The 84 Huskys have been used as an example , so is 84 the year cut off for Evo bikes or Evo parts or is there still no year cut off ?

[Ted]

And the opposing argument is that major components cannot be taken from a bike with ( either or all ) disc brakes , water cooling or linkage suspension regardless of manufacture date

[sa63]

there is no cut off.
You can ride a mid 90s DT175 if that rocks your boat, as one person does in qld, Its a technology based class not era.

[William Doe]

So can I fit conventional forks from a 1998 RM 250 to my 1979 RM 250 ? I will fabricate a bracket to hold the front brake backing plate and bolt it to the caliper mounts .

[Shane W]

And the opposing argument is that major components cannot be taken from a bike with ( either or all ) disc brakes , water cooling or linkage suspension regardless of manufacture date

Again you are reading this rule wrong. It does not say that you cannot fit parts it only says what you cannot fit. No disc brakes, no linkage suspension and the bike (the original bike you are racing) must be air cooled.

It to me is pretty clear on this point and this is how the rule has read

Shane

[tony27]

Going off the era argument saying that later forks are legal then side port yz490 motors must be legal as well because they bolt straight into yz250 & 465 frames
I'm glad that this argument hasn't hit NZ yet

[Ted]

So can I fit conventional forks from a 1998 RM 250 to my 1979 RM 250 ? I will fabricate a bracket to hold the front brake backing plate and bolt it to the caliper mounts .

If the OEM wording is removed yes you can because you are not modifying, you are manufacturing. No modification required

[Shane W]

So can I fit conventional forks from a 1998 RM 250 to my 1979 RM 250 ? I will fabricate a bracket to hold the front brake backing plate and bolt it to the caliper mounts .

Bill, short no as you need to make a bracket for it to fit. That would be covered by the fact that you have modified to fit and not OEM, also you cannot run disk brake on evo as it states this clearly in the rules.

That is what makes the Honda (in the case of the 79) legal as you do not have to modify anything. The thing that came up earlier about fitting 500 engines to the 79 is also a joke as you would need to modify the engine mounts (and most off all the frame) to fit these and that is also against the current and proposed rules. The rule states that engines and gearbox must remain externally unchanged as I am entering a 79 CR 250 the engine would have to be a 78 or 79 CR 250 and not a 450 or 480 engine as these differ, for that point I can't even fit a 80 CR 250 engine as the barrel differs.

As for the rule changes I am not sure as to why these are being put forward. Evo has works well for the last 10 years with the current rules and I see no reason to change them.

No one has yet pointed out to me as to how I am reading my interpretation of the rule wrong. Not their point of view but how it is wrong via the current rules?

I am not trying to shit stir I was answering a question that was asked at the start of this thread and as usual all the so call experts have put in their two bobs worth without looking at the facts.

I am not going to post again on this topic as I have covered and expanded all my points of view. I did say about 8 pages ago this thread should be put to bead as it has turned out like the last thread pre the nats.

I will beg to differ with some of you on here as it is your point of view and you are entitled to it.

Shane Wilson

[William Doe]

I'm glad that this argument hasn't hit NZ yet

I don't think it will Tony as we self govern rather than be held to a system that is administered at the top level by people with zero interest in Vintage MX or DT other than collecting the fees and further down the chain by volunteers who with the best intentions in the world still have to work from a book that is open to different interpretations . Even when the masses want a change it is a very long winded process and those at the top with no interest other than financial still seem to have the final say.

Iv'e said it before and I will say it again the Aussie template ( the rules not the over complicated administration ) for running VMX events scores IMHO a 9 out of 10 just needs a little tuning to take away some of the ambiguity and threads like this would go away.

 

[bigk]

By the way, I'm told PB found some forks. End of thread.
K