OzVMX Forum
Clubroom => General Discussion => Topic started by: fatboyracing on January 10, 2011, 04:55:17 pm
-
Hi Guys,
Can some one please help me and tell me the difference between the 1984 and 1985 model CR Honda 250
I have an eligibility question and I would like to know the difference if any
cheers
Fatboy
-
Cosmetically to tell the difference by looking at them?
http://100megsfree4.com/honda/h0200/cr250r.htm (http://100megsfree4.com/honda/h0200/cr250r.htm)
-
Shane, easier to say what is the same!
The 125's are generally the same but the 250's at completely different.
Tank including air intakes
Seat
Rear guard and side plates
Air box
Engine cases (mounting at swingarm, is a bracket on 84 will the 85 is moulded with insert)
Barrel including ATAC is cylinder mounted on 84 and is a canister (like 84 125) on the 85
Flat slide 85 v round slide 84
Rear shock is different (not just spring colour)
So as I said not close
-
Thanks Shane and Brad,
That has answered my queries
I thought that they were the same must have been getting confused with the 125
Thanks Guys
Fatboy
-
MA could probably afford to have an era eligibility CD data base made up for the Dirt & Classic Nationals etc. ;D
cheers A
-
I believe that the 85 seat/tank and side covers go straight on to the '84 bike (and visa versa).
Arguably, the shock doesn't matter as there are no limitations on shock absorbers in pre-85.
Flat slide carb is much the same deal - providing the 85 model's carb was available in 1984 of something.
So really only ("only"!) the motor is a problem, as I see it.
-
The '85 and '86 250's are close (at a glance)
-
Nathan, I am sure it is as easy as bolting on the 85 sub frame to the 84 but that does not make it a carry over item, it is different and that is the point.
The moter is very different, outside of the crank, electics most other parts are different. If you ride an 85 v 84 you can pick the difference straight away.
Point taken about the shock as you can put on a performance shock anyway.
Shane, you would be right with the125's very simular.
-
Shane, you would be right with the125's very simular.
Not to look at.Only the front guard is the same cosmetically.Very easy to tell apart.
As far as '84 bits bolting up to '85 bits, I have never done that particular exercise but Honda's tended to make a lot of things different. Sometimes just slightly. I would bet that a seat and tank might sort of fit but won't really. Two examples are 85 and 86 cr500 tanks and shrouds look exactly the same but they are different and will not fit. 82 and 83 cr480's are similar and some things will fit but lots won't.I believe that the 85 seat/tank and side covers go straight on to the '84 bike (and visa versa).
Arguably, the shock doesn't matter as there are no limitations on shock absorbers in pre-85.
Flat slide carb is much the same deal - providing the 85 model's carb was available in 1984 of something.
So really only ("only"!) the motor is a problem, as I see it.
I don't see the point in saying this or using 85 parts on an 84. An 85 shock may bolt up but is way too long and it will look like a chopper.And wouldn't you be limited to a pre '85 shock or an after market one?
-
And wouldn't you be limited to a pre '85 shock or an after market one?
When would it make sense to allow 2011 made aftermarket shocks but prohibit 1985 made production shocks?
From the very earliest days of VMX, shocks have been considered consumables, so can be swapped freely with other shocks - imagine having to try to find and race with original shocks on ANY of the pre-75 bikes... :o
The older bikes have limitiations regarding travel and remote resevoirs, which is fine.
Those restrictions do not apply to Evo+ bikes: Any shock is acceptable.
I guess the point I was trying to make is that if we want to have rules enforced sensibly, then we need to look at the bike as a pile of parts, just as much as we look at it as a complete bike.
-
When would it make sense to allow 2011 made aftermarket shocks but prohibit 1985 made production shocks?
Same as any other era is my thought. Can't put pre 78 style shocks on a pre 75. But you can buy new period style ones.
I was using that theory. Also the fact that its a part off a pre 90 bike. But like you said , shocks are consumables so I will say its a shit idea as there are plenty of options to keep it real and specifically in this example won't fit the bike...properly. Also pulling apart the rules to suit an argument is a negative. One should be saying that putting 85 parts on an 84 bike is inappropriate ( for want a better word).
-
Brad, sorry I should have said engine wise they are simular.
Guards, seats and tanks I would think are not performance parts (save for major changes like the 82 and 83 model 480's).
I would agree that use of differing era parts should not be condoned (newer to older class)
-
Hi Guys,
I would like to put together a data base of bikes from year to year,changes etc great help when scruttenering bikes at nationals and state level etc.
Any one want to help or start would be great
I am learning the differences with evo/pre 85 bikes
All this info would help me with commission dutys too.
Cheers
Fatboy
-
FB - if you want a hand setting up an excel sheet for it let me know - I volunteer - if you want to go properly and do a database - sorry I am rusty there!
-
Hi Guys,
I would like to put together a data base of bikes from year to year,changes etc great help when scruttenering bikes at nationals and state level etc.
Any one want to help or start would be great
I am learning the differences with evo/pre 85 bikes
All this info would help me with commission dutys too.
Cheers
Fatboy
Sounds like a great idea.
What sort of format are you thinking of? Pics of each year model + written blurb to explain the things to look for?
-
Can't put pre 78 style shocks on a pre 75. But you can buy new period style ones.
Says who? Pre-75 (and older) have the most restrictive rules, and even they say nothing about age/model/length - just 4" of travel and no remote cannisters.
Fitting an '85 CR shock into an '84 model bike might be a dumb idea, but it doesn't stop the bike being pre-85 legal.
If the 85 model part is the same (or is a component that is allowed to be replaced), then it doesn't matter that its an 85 model part.
-
I think you know what I'm trying to say. You can't put rm125b shocks on a 74 cr125.
Fitting an '85 CR shock into an '84 model bike might be a dumb idea, but it doesn't stop the bike being pre-85 legal. My point is that it shouldn't be legal or encouraged. By making that type of statement does put ideas in peoples heads.
If the 85 model part is the same (or is a component that is allowed to be replaced), then it doesn't matter that its an 85 model part.Which it isn't in your example. The similarity is it is a shock with a reservoir
The only point I want to make, as clearly as I can, is that it should be discouraged to bastardise bikes with incorrect components especially when there are correct parts available. Mainly to preserve the bikes as they should be.
-
My point is that it shouldn't be legal or encouraged.
Why is using an 85 model shock worse than using a 2011 aftermarket shock? I genuinely don't understand the train of logic there.
If the 85 model part ... (... is a component that is allowed to be replaced), then it doesn't matter that its an 85 model part.
The only point I want to make, as clearly as I can, is that it should be discouraged to bastardise bikes with incorrect components especially when there are correct parts available. Mainly to preserve the bikes as they should be.
This I agree with.
-
My point is that it shouldn't be legal or encouraged.
Why is using an 85 model shock worse than using a 2011 aftermarket shock? I genuinely don't understand the train of logic there.
The usual total waste of time.The 85 shock (as Brad said) is longer ,also has a 46mm piston with more or less mosern style valving the 84 doesnt and has limited possibilities and is als on 40mm piston .The linkage and swingarm are different and so is the linkage bracket at the frame.The plastics are also different, to change the sidecovers you need to do also the airbox,the tank means the radiators shrouds and the radiators need to change as well and then the pipe wont clear the tank as it sits lower like the radiators. The seat is mounted further up on the subframe so you need to change that also.Honda changed to a flat slide carb in 85 so obviously thats not available in 84 - unless you use one of a different brand of bike - maybe a mikuni but the bell housing is different so you need to mod or adapt to fit the airboot.The front end includung the forks,wheel,mudgaurd and triples are completely interchangable, the rear gaurd isnt.
The 85 motor is a slug the 84 is a rocketship , for forksake just get a bike to fit the class as it comes.
-
[/quote]
The 85 shock is so different it will not go in without huge surgery . You would have to modify so much , its not a 84 anymore . Thats what 090 is trying to say , and he is absolutely correct.
[/quote]
Yes he is Walter.
-
Why is using an 85 model shock worse than using a 2011 aftermarket shock? I genuinely don't understand the train of logic there.
The logic as I see it is that the rules say you can use a 2011 after market shock that is designed for that bike, where as fitting later model components to an earlier class err to the side of illegal or if not just need to be discouraged.
My initial post was more to point out , why give people that want do want to bend the rules some sort of justification by saying in your e.g put an 85 shock in an 84. The fact it doesn't fit even though is fact, is not the point I want to make.
-
The logic as I see it is that the rules say you can use a 2011 after market shock that is designed for that bike, where as fitting later model components to an earlier class err to the side of illegal or if not just need to be discouraged.
Even when I disagree with you Brad, I can usually understand where you're coming from.
This is not one of those times.
What if it turns out that a 1995 YZ250 shock fits straight into an 84 CR250? Why is it "illegal" or to be discouraged when a brand new aftermarket shock is OK?
-
Without knowing the mechanics of this particular situation or offering a yay or nay opinion....this is yet another example of the urgent need to start upgrading and clarifying the MoMs eligibility criteria. The more new divisions that enter the sport, the more inadequate the now 20 year old eligibility requirements appear. The revamp needs to be started as soon as possible.
Shane, Dave T, Ross and other MA officials, this is a serious situation that needs to be attended to ASAP. This is serious, long term committee work that must be done right, and to do that a 'Brains Trust' needs to be assembled to oversee and consider input from individual marque specialists. It's impossible for one person or even a committee to possess the knowledge needed to do this properly but I honestly believe that there are people within the vintage community who are experts in their own particular area of interest that can really contribute.
As it stands right now the rules for every division ranging from pre 60 right through to Evo and pre '85 feature double meanings, vague language and blatant mistakes. In some areas such as suspension, and carburetion for instance, the details need to be mapped out in 'what's in' and what's out' detail to make eligibility rulings a black and white situation...removing all of the grey areas.
-
Seems common sense has left this thread. ;)
Shocks are a consumable not a core component.
-
Shocks are a consumable not a core component.
You betcha Mick...but what's to stop a handy boilermaker like yourself from repacing the whole shock and linkage setup from a 2011 bike to an '84 CR500? The way the rulebook reads at present there's nothing to stop you doing that. Now I don't think that many of us would agree with that extreme hypothetical becoming a reality so it's pretty bloody obvious to me that what you can and what you can't do needs to be mapped out in detail in MoMs, starting sooner than later. ;)
-
no questions from me today
-
The logic as I see it is that the rules say you can use a 2011 after market shock that is designed for that bike, where as fitting later model components to an earlier class err to the side of illegal or if not just need to be discouraged.
Even when I disagree with you Brad, I can usually understand where you're coming from.
This is not one of those times.
What if it turns out that a 1995 YZ250 shock fits straight into an 84 CR250? Why is it "illegal" or to be discouraged when a brand new aftermarket shock is OK?
To answer that question, it is in line with the rules for all other eras. Period shocks or replacement new ones to suit that era.Same should apply in the later classes. The only difference is that they are all similar by pre 85 hence your reasoning.
Playing devils advocate will, I feel, give some people the ammunition to justify doing some shit things to their bike. Such as putting 2011 forks on an 85 model bike (random e.g.)
-
It's not hard just look at the road racing rules. That defines major and minor components, major components have to be period, minor are open. Then the whole eligablity criteria would be a easy yes/no with fatboyracing(??) proposed database and a log book.
The data base with a few pics would be 10 pages pics maxiumum would show follow on major components, so any scrutineer could look at the pic eg triple clamps, and decide quickly.With a log book you are outlining the modifiactions to the bike.Under rear suspension eg 84 CR 250 frame fitted with unknown mid 90's shock. Frame mounting points unaltered. Linkage from 2010 RMZ 250.
-
I've never thought a lot about it but log-books would probably be a good idea (as long the RTA/Cops can't fine you 600 bucks for not signing your page off.... ::))
-
Period shocks or replacement new ones to suit that era.
You've made that up - its not in the rules, or even implied in the pre-85 rules.
FWIW, I offered some private advice on the 84 vs 85 CR250 thing, and tried to hose down the notion that the '85 model was a carry-over bike. I'm guessing the bike's owner didn't like the answer and has asked for official confirmation through the Commission.
-
I can see where Nathen is coming from with his thoughts on the shcck issue. If I go out and buy a Ohlins,YSS or Works Performance shock. It will be far better than the 1984 shock. Piston and valving will be way better. It will be better than what you could buy in 1984. Shocks are getting fitted with Gold valves or modern pistons and shim stacks. So if a shock can be sourced from a newer model and fitted without modification to the bike, ie same linkage and mounting points it is no different to buying a new shock. You can not buy a period shock, they are all better now than they were then. I personally do not have a problem with this. What you have to understand is the new shock is far better than they were in 1984. But this is ok. Old shocks can be modified to todays standards with Gold Valves and the like and it is to hard to police. So let it be, it makes the bikes safer anyway.
-
The shock is never the question when deternination of eligibility is made so long as its the same length and externally compatible with the period; I treat a shock like you might treat a set of tyres, if its 25 years old its probably stuffed.
That said I do consider the major components of a machine the areas that will determine eligible status, the engine, the wheels and brakes, frame and forks etc, these must be of the period and in the case of pre 85 be the available items of the 1984 model year, yes there will be specials and remanufactured / replica parts - all looked at case by case.
If the bike has the 85 engine its not in the pre 85 race, if the engine is an exact follow on then it is (TM250L / M engine is a good example of a follow on engine). In the Honda's case its not a follow on.
211
-
In 2009 I suggested the following changes to the 2010 GCR's.
18.7.15.1 - (NEW RULE)
A Pre 85 machine will be defined as a machine that was originally equipped with;
a) Linkage rear suspension system.
b) Rear drum brake equipped.
18.7.15.2 Pre 1985 Eligibility - (CURRENT GCR)
Acceptable machines for pre 1985 are machines built up to and including the 1984 models. The only exception to this GCR is where the model remains unaltered after this date. The onus of proof of eligibility shall rest wholly on the rider or entrant of this machine.
18.7.15.2 Pre 1985 Eligibility - (SUGGESTED CHANGE)
Acceptable machines for pre 1985 are machines built up to and including the 1984 models. Machines and/or their components built or complianced in 1984 and sold designated as 1985 models are excluded. The only exception to this GCR is where the model remains unaltered after this date. The onus of proof of eligibility shall rest wholly on the rider or entrant of the machine.
18.7.14.3 - (CURRENT GCR)
Modifications using later equipment are not allowed
18.7.14.3 - (SUGGESTED CHANGE)
Modifications using later equipment components from machines other than listed in 18.7.15.1 & 18.7.15.2 are not allowed.
18.7.14.4 - (CURRENT GCR)
All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured.
18.7.14.4 - (SUGGESTED CHANGE)
All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured up to 31st December 1984
Whilst they could be massaged a bit more given that it is now 2 years on the basic intent remains intact. Not wanting to offend 211 Kawasaki, but the points that you make are the exact problems that SCB’s and State based clubs like Heaven & VIPER face when it comes to the localised eligibility issues.
To say that you treat a shock like a set of tyres and that under yours or MA’s interpretation that a shock wouldn’t fall into the same category as a fork set or wheel leaves me baffled. To say that remanufactured & replica parts will be looked at case by case says that the GCR’s are open to interpretation. On an as presented basis on race day, decisions won’t be consistent race to race, year on year as different stewards will be in attendance.
-
Seems common sense has left this thread. ;)
Shocks are a consumable not a core component.
To say, or have printed in the GCR's that a linkage type suspension shock absorber is consumable part and not a core component needs to be adressed. This maybe the case for the short travel bikes up to the Pre78, but saying that a 1984 KX, RM etc shock is a consumable is not in line with todays thinking.
-
I like the direction you're headed, Bahnzy, but the problem is still that we talk about "machines" without reference to the idea that a machine is simply a bundle of parts.
Until we have a definite list of "major components" to define the bits that cannot be freely changed, we're pissing in the wind.
-
Period shocks or replacement new ones to suit that era.
You've made that up - its not in the rules, or even implied in the pre-85 rules.
FWIW, I offered some private advice on the 84 vs 85 CR250 thing, and tried to hose down the notion that the '85 model was a carry-over bike. I'm guessing the bike's owner didn't like the answer and has asked for official confirmation through the Commission.
Seems you are blowing me off for not quoting rules. The way that the rules are meant to be read for earlier classes are that they have to be period items or new replacement that conform to the era. You know the rules as do I. Splitting hairs is just arguing for the sake of it. I am saying (again) to use the same train of thought as the early classes and put on era correct parts. It's alot harder as the basics are the same now as they were in the mid eighties. To preserve eras and the bikes, this train of thought needs to be adopted. I will say AGAIN that saying it's okay to miss match parts through the eras simply because it fits or it was lying in the shed or what ever is counter productive IMO.
-
Its been a great way to start the year, floods, bushfires, cyclone warnings and now an eligibility debate.
This thread started out as a CR question but obviously the issue is generic to all era’s.
Pre 85 single shocks may have a longer shelf life than the early twinshocks but they still wear out.
Aftermarket shocks from the day were available but they are rare and expensive, as had been said if the shock can be made to fit it’s not going to be any more advanced than a modern replica.
78 model shocks had some technological advantages over 74 shocks but an 85 shock has nothing over a 84 shock.
Do we really need to be splitting hairs?
Would you really be happy about protesting someone because they had fitted a YZ-E shock into their YZ-D?
Or RM-C shocks onto an RM-B?
One major flaw in the rules is that Major components isn’t listed.
All major components should be of the era.
In my opinion major parts should be…
Frame
Swingarm
Hubs
Forks
Engine cases
Head & barrel
Carby
Debatable major parts would be…
Triple clamps
Shock linkages
-
Brad,
I (personally) think that the biggest issue is mindset.
For what ever reason the EVO & Pre85 GCR's were written as an evolution (pardon the pun) of the GCR's written for Pre60 to Pre78 classes rather than a stand alone class structure. I'm not having a snipe at the people that did it, but it’s the situation that came about when they were written.
A result of this is that we tend to think & behave towards EVO & Pre85 in the manner that we conduct ourselves in the Pre60 to Pre78 environment.
-
In my opinion major parts should be…
Frame
Swingarm
Hubs
Forks
Engine cases
Head & barrel
Carby
Debatable major parts would be…
Triple clamps
Shock linkages
Geoff,
What i struggle to understand is why a fork is considered a major component yet a linkage type shock is not.
-
The fork defines a bikes looks, the shock is mostly hidden.
Shocks wear out internally more than forks
Forks can be modified internally same as shocks
I don’t see that later shocks as being that much different to pre85 shocks
I think the linkage may be considered major component but as I said, it is worthy of debate
-
Geoff,
What i struggle to understand is why a fork is considered a major component yet a linkage type shock is not.
I'd say there's two main reasons:
1. The VMX rules have always considered shocks to be consumables (for better or for worse).
2. Shocks wear out more readily than forks do.
Seems you are blowing me off for not quoting rules.
Kind of - if you want the rules changed then ask for the rules to be changed. But if you tell us that the rules mean something different to what they say, then I'll continue to disagree with you.
I still think there's a big flaw in your logic on the shock issue anyhow. Its impossible and illogical to enforce "no newer production shocks" while accepting brand new aftermarket shocks.
Any performance benefit that a later model production shock will offer, can easily be surpassed by a new shock from Walter. The new shock will undoubtedly be shinier and have more adjustment too.
If that's acceptable, then how can you argue that a 1986 model shock is not?
(-: What GMC said).
-
Interesting but i don't think pre '85 will ever get this picky at an actual race meeting. So much after market stuff was available for them.. shocks, linkages, forks, triple clamps, pipes etc.
Hopefully common sense will prevail.
-
I believe that the 85 seat/tank and side covers go straight on to the '84 bike (and visa versa).
I originally posted a response to this comment . To say its okay to throw a heap of 85 (mainly cosmetic) parts at an 84 model bike is counter productive even though it isn't illegal by the rules. It makes a mockery of pre 85 era racing. Why not ( being ridiculous now)use a 2001 cr500 roller and put an 84 cr500 and race pre 85 or pre 90. Legal for pre 90, up for discussion in pre 85. Stick my 97 Vertemati 50mm conventionals in and its good to go for pre 85. Talk like that can't be good for the later classes.
The best thing I can say about how I feel is I don't want to look at a beloved 85 cr500 and it looks nothing like it should. Shit that wrecks the bike but is 'within the rules'.
Its impossible and illogical to enforce "no newer production shocks" while accepting brand new aftermarket shocks.
Any performance benefit that a later model production shock will offer, can easily be surpassed by a new shock from Walter. The new shock will undoubtedly be shinier and have more adjustment too.
If that's acceptable, then how can you argue that a 1986 model shock is not?
Easy as the same can be said for pre 75, pre 78 etc. You can use the latest from Ohlins on your pre 75 but you can't put a set of oem shocks off an rm125b.
And for what it's worth,mid eighties parts are rebuild-able and if they are worn out there will be a load of spares out there in ebay land.
-
With defined major and minor components the newest major component (ie frame, swing arm ,hubs,forks engine cases etc) the machine is deemed to be that era.If you have a 2001 frame the bike is deemed to be a 2001 bike therefore ineligable. But that example the bike would not be issued with a log book.
All this is stopped dead in it's tracks with a log book. I don't think log books are necessary for club meetings but a must for National titles.
Items like triples and linkages would not be worth worrying over. Would be easy enough to copy a late model aftermarket linkage and make it look old.
-
Easy as the same can be said for pre 75, pre 78 etc. You can use the latest from Ohlins on your pre 75 but you can't put a set of oem shocks off an rm125b.
There's a specific rule that prohibits remote resevoirs on pre-75 bikes. That's the reason a pair of RM-B shocks aren't allowed on a pre-75 bike (assuming the wheel travel is under 4").
The age of the shocks is completely irrelevant, despite what you might think.
Do you think that guys running modern style guards on their pre-75 bikes are a problem for the sport?
-
Do you think that guys running modern style guards on their pre-75 bikes are a problem for the sport?
Poor taste.
I believe that the 85 seat/tank and side covers go straight on to the '84 bike (and visa versa).
Poor form.
So really only ("only"!) the motor is a problem, as I see it.
Poor form.
Trivialising the era by slapping late model parts on a an era specific class is my beef. No need to quote rules.
Leads to more of this sort of shit.
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170584339100&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fshop.ebay.com.au%3A80%2F%3F_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dp3984.m570.l1313%26_nkw%3D170584339100%26_sacat%3DSee-All-Categories%26_fvi%3D1&_rdc=1 (http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170584339100&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fshop.ebay.com.au%3A80%2F%3F_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dp3984.m570.l1313%26_nkw%3D170584339100%26_sacat%3DSee-All-Categories%26_fvi%3D1&_rdc=1)
-
Do you think that guys running modern style guards on their pre-75 bikes are a problem for the sport?
Poor taste.
I believe that the 85 seat/tank and side covers go straight on to the '84 bike (and visa versa).
Poor form.
So really only ("only"!) the motor is a problem, as I see it.
Poor form.
Trivialising the era by slapping late model parts on a an era specific class is my beef. No need to quote rules.
You are beating you head against a brickwall Brad.
-
If the rulebook mapped out the eligibility requirements in a forthright and well researched manner, these tiresome threads wouldn't occur. There are too many grey areas open to whatever intepretation you want to give them. This thread and it's brothers has been going on for 20 years. Let's get rid of the grey areas.
-
Do you think that guys running modern style guards on their pre-75 bikes are a problem for the sport?
Poor taste.
I believe that the 85 seat/tank and side covers go straight on to the '84 bike (and visa versa).
Poor form.
So really only ("only"!) the motor is a problem, as I see it.
Poor form.
Trivialising the era by slapping late model parts on a an era specific class is my beef. No need to quote rules.
Leads to more of this sort of shit.
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170584339100&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fshop.ebay.com.au%3A80%2F%3F_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dp3984.m570.l1313%26_nkw%3D170584339100%26_sacat%3DSee-All-Categories%26_fvi%3D1&_rdc=1 (http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170584339100&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fshop.ebay.com.au%3A80%2F%3F_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dp3984.m570.l1313%26_nkw%3D170584339100%26_sacat%3DSee-All-Categories%26_fvi%3D1&_rdc=1)
So why labor on the shock?
WRT the cosmetics, I guess I was trying to point out that 'staying pure' might not being doing the sport any favours. If we were to kick out people with pre-75 bikes that had later style mudguards, would it be a step forward or a step backwards for the sport? Personally, I'm all for getting bikes out there competing, even if they don't look 100% era correct (mechanicals are another issue).
Is an 85 model tank on an 84 CR250 any different to a late mode lguard on a pre-75 bike? Why/why not?
Believe it or not, I mostly agree with your point of view on this - but the discussion needs to be about how the rules should be changed, not how the rules are.
-
So why labor on the shock?
I wasn't. with others pointing out it wouldn't fit, it went awol. That's why I went back to our first two posts.
Believe it or not, I mostly agree with your point of view on this - but the discussion needs to be about how the rules should be changed, not how the rules are.
I know you do yet you seem to want to debate everything.
I believe that the 85 seat/tank and side covers go straight on to the '84 bike (and visa versa).
So really only ("only"!) the motor is a problem, as I see it.
And you know there is nothing positive in these two statements of yours. I will go further to say its detrimental.
-
Are you trying to out-stubbon me!? Good work son - much respect for trying, no matter how futile your efforts. ;D
OK look, here's the deal:
VMX247 asked me the exact same question a few weeks back. Apparently some guy in WA bought a CR250RF in the mistaken belief that it would be eligible for pre-85 racing. I did some research on 84 vs 85 and concluded pretty much what Shane said: Not completely different bikes, but no cigar either.
Remember than in WA, the term "Pre-90" is even dirtier than it is here in NSW - the bike is useless to the bloke if it can't race pre-85.
The way I saw it, if the bike's owner could bring the engine back to a 1984 engine, it should be close enough for club-level pre-85 racing - the important performance bits would be the same/close enough.
When this thread sprung up, I assumed that it was prompted by the same bloke (I still don't know if I'm right or wrong, BTW). I'd had some time to think about the bloke's predicament and about what I believe is actually good for the sport of VMX.
Given the current health of the sport, I honestly believe that a bike with no performance advantage and that's fundamentally of the same era should be allowed to race among the kosher pre-85 bikes, which lead to my first contribution to this thread.
The alternative is to tell the guy with his nice RF to f$ck off and almost certainly risk losing him to the world of VMX.
You know the rest of the story.
-
Given the current health of the sport, I honestly believe that a bike with no performance advantage and that's fundamentally of the same era should be allowed to race among the kosher pre-85 bikes,
The alternative is to tell the guy with his nice RF to f$ck off and almost certainly risk losing him to the world of VMX.
At a National level meeting - No
At a local club level meeting, well thats something to take up with your local club.
Its a bummer for the guy to buy the wrong bike but he should have done his homework first, which isn't that hard.
-
Tell him to f@#k off ...nicely.
You let one guy in,you have to let them all in. His mistake, his problem. You do the right thing and so do I.So should he.
THE END I just found this gizmo and am having fun.Nathan the mass-debater ;D
-
Its a bummer for the guy to buy the wrong bike but he should have done his homework first, ....
Which is almost exactly what I said.
Can't recall if I've posted this, but the other part of my thought process relates to a bloke who has a 100% carry-over 1985 model Vinduro bike:
Despite the general desire to keep vinduros free of this sort of pettiness that's plagued VMX, there's a movement to make Vinduros strictly about 1984 and earlier models, leaving this bloke without a chance to ride a very nice and uncommon bike.
The stupid thing is that only the compliance plate gives it away as an '85 model. To my mind he should remove the compliance plate for events, or simply claim that its an 84 model that had a damaged frame and the frame was replaced with an identical 85 model one....
PS: I still love you Brad, mostly for you man-boobs.
-
:D
-
Can't recall if I've posted this, but the other part of my thought process relates to a bloke who has a 100% carry-over 1985 model Vinduro bike:
Despite the general desire to keep vinduros free of this sort of pettiness that's plagued VMX, there's a movement to make Vinduros strictly about 1984 and earlier models, leaving this bloke without a chance to ride a very nice and uncommon bike.
I once put forward the notion that Vinduros should be Pre 87 or 88
Based on the fact that 85 doesn’t really mean anything in the Enduro bike development, and because Enduro bikes, mainly the Japs, were a year or 2 behind MX development.
It seems most disagreed with me.
-
GMC, The problem with making sense is that everyone feels obliged to ignore it, because it wasn't their idea.
Not that I'd know.
-
I'm going with 18.7.14.2,18.7.14.3 and 18.7.14.4 its safer and we worked out how to make it bigger too!! :D ;)
cheers S&A WA
-
I'm going with 18.7.14.2,18.7.14.3 and 18.7.14.4 its safer and we worked out how to make it bigger too!! :D ;)
cheers S&A WA
Thats brilliant Allison! One problem I do see though is it would need to be translated for those who don't understand English.
-
Nathan/Brad - interesting - and picking up on GMC's comments - we also (pre 85 club WA) had a guy who bought himself some RF (watercooled) CR500s then asked to join the club - as you said if you bend the rules for one they will keep coming.
-
Brad,
I (personally) think that the biggest issue is mindset.
For what ever reason the EVO & Pre85 GCR's were written as an evolution (pardon the pun) of the GCR's written for Pre60 to Pre78 classes rather than a stand alone class structure. I'm not having a snipe at the people that did it, but it’s the situation that came about when they were written.
A result of this is that we tend to think & behave towards EVO & Pre85 in the manner that we conduct ourselves in the Pre60 to Pre78 environment.
And probably hasnt crossed there minds, such as is the case with pre90/95 era's today.
First we need those clubs to exist to push the issue of pre95 etc ;) ;D
cheers A
-
When this thread sprung up, I assumed that it was prompted by the same bloke (I still don't know if I'm right or wrong, BTW). I'd had some time to think about the bloke's predicament and about what I believe is actually good for the sport of VMX.
Yes it would be great if its the same bloke/rider.As some just sit on forums looking for answers and whinge.
Thats what we pay for in VMX fees- MA to do an ongoing preservation of our era's.
cheers A