OzVMX Forum
Clubroom => Bike Talk => Topic started by: Nathan S on August 16, 2013, 08:16:22 pm
-
What is there?
Not interested in pre-85 carry-over models like TS185ER or XL185.
Only thing I can come up with is the 1985+ DT175N.
Anything else?
What about the 1985.0 Huskies (before they went to mono shock in 1985.5)? Any of them still air-cooled? Must be some sort of WR/XC500?
What about the CZ 513/514? Were they pre-85 or not?
-
I think the 85 TE510 4 stroke was still twin shock air cooled..
-
You could buy new CZ in 94 that IMO were evo legal. Have you ever seen one thou?
Look at what bike won the EVO open Cononadle Classic here a few weeks back. A stock KTM 390 with just a few motor mods. Gazzi rear shocks stock KTM forks and brakes.
-
You could buy new CZ in 94 that IMO were evo legal. Have you ever seen one thou?
Look at what bike won the EVO open Cononadle Classic here a few weeks back. A stock KTM 390 with just a few motor mods. Gazzi rear shocks stock KTM forks and brakes.
Yeah I was in that race, those Horwood brothers are fast and quite a few years younger..
-
You could buy new CZ in 94 that IMO were evo legal. Have you ever seen one thou?
That's the 513 (250) and 514 (400). There's a few around - at least one that gets used regularly in Victoria.
I'm 98% sure that the 90s models were the same as the 1984 models, making them a carry-over of a bike that was made before 1985.
-
Yeah I was in that race, those Horwood brothers are fast and quite a few years younger
They are not that much younger with the older one now in his 40's. You wont find them around the fire till the wee hours drinking fire water and telling true stories thou. ;)
-
Those CZs are the same as the 1980 model aren't they?
-
This link says 1983: http://66.84.0.143/~ahrmanwc/CZmx4a.htm
Not sure if there were changes to later models? Doesn't seem likely...
-
I've looked at photos of at least 91 or maybe 92 models that are still Evo bikes. Even if they aren't quite the same they should qualify as an Evo bike. Not as a carry over fr an 80 model. I think you are going about it in the wrong way if you are doing it by year models.
-
The lack of year model stuff is a huge source of the vagueness.
If a 1992 CZ 513 isn't very closely related to a 1984 CZ 513 (I'm sure they are, but if they aren't), then it has no more of a claim to being an Evo bike than a 2013 SexMax does.
If they are very closely related, then there's no problem in calling it a carry-over bike.
If we don't put an age restriction on Evo, then we can't stop nonsense like the SexMax.
Evo needs an age limit to turn it into a historic category.
-
The lack of year model stuff is a huge source of the vagueness.
If a 1992 CZ 513 isn't very closely related to a 1984 CZ 513 (I'm sure they are, but if they aren't), then it has no more of a claim to being an Evo bike than a 2013 SexMax does.
If they are very closely related, then there's no problem in calling it a carry-over bike.
If we don't put an age restriction on Evo, then we can't stop nonsense like the SexMax.
Evo needs an age limit to turn it into a historic category.
Well thats fair enough. Isnickinoff in Czech might be pissed off though...
-
This link says 1983: http://66.84.0.143/~ahrmanwc/CZmx4a.htm
Not sure if there were changes to later models? Doesn't seem likely...
Did anyone look closely at this link? The CZs after 1982 have a single rear shock so are not legal for Evo class.
Please, the fictional bike called a SexMax is a modified OEM bike so is also not legal for Evo. If someone built a bike from scratch you could in theory make an Evo eligible bike, but why the hell would you?
Leave the Evo rules as they are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Did anyone look closely at this link? The CZs after 1982 have a single rear shock so are not legal for Evo class.
Please, the fictional bike called a SexMax is a modified OEM bike so is also not legal for Evo. If someone built a bike from scratch you could in theory make an Evo eligible bike, but why the hell would you?
You clearly didn't.
The 516, 513 and 514 are the only production models among them, and they were made from 1983 into the 1990s.
Once I call my fictional bike a SexMax, I become the OEM, and it becomes legal.
-
This link says 1983: http://66.84.0.143/~ahrmanwc/CZmx4a.htm
Not sure if there were changes to later models? Doesn't seem likely...
Did anyone look closely at this link? The CZs after 1982 have a single rear shock so are not legal for Evo class.
Only the 519 model 125 that was sold to the public got a mono shock & discs, all the 513 & 514 250s & 380s are twinshock, drum braked & aircooled which makes them evo legal.
I've seen tests from in the 90s of the 380s when they were selling for about 3k new as playbikes & they still looked like a late 70s bike
There may have been some 250s available with monoshocks but you're not likely to see 1 anywhere but europe
-
Thanks.
-
Because the below Indian made 2000 model Royal Enfield Bullet 500 is an almost direct flow on from the 1955 British made Royal Enfield, they're universally accepted in the pre 65 class as shown by the bike in the middle photo. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to envision one pimped up with 44mm Fox Forks, Yamaha wheels and Fox Airshox. The red and white bike in the bottom photo is of course an "artists impression" but I reckon I could build an Evo legal 2000 (and maybe even later) Royal Enfield that'd look pretty similar. The 2013 Royal Enfield is still air cooled and twin shock equipped but it's now got disc brakes and EFI so it is illegal for Evo.
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/ROYALENFIELDBULLET_zps91eefae3.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/ROYALENFIELDBULLET_zps91eefae3.jpg.html)
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/royalenfield2_zps1a24ad85.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/royalenfield2_zps1a24ad85.jpg.html)
(http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k495/firko2/Royal-Enfield-Baja-Concept_zps179e522b.jpg) (http://s1112.photobucket.com/user/firko2/media/Royal-Enfield-Baja-Concept_zps179e522b.jpg.html)
-
Looks like my Royal Enfield suggestion has become a thread killer. I guess it didn't fit into the demographic as well as a SexMax does ::).
-
Honestly, I didn't understand what your point was.
Using a Pre-65 bike to make a legal Evo bike is odd, but obviously not a problem.
Using a carry-over version of the Pre-65 bike doesn't change anything.
-
That Royal looks great... I want the rear shocks, are they making them in india now?
-
Honestly, I didn't understand what your point was.
Using a Pre-65 bike to make a legal Evo bike is odd, but obviously not a problem.
You asked for us to show post 84 Evo bikes and I did....it's a 2000 model Royal Enfield.....that's my point, I'd have thought it was pretty obvious.
-
Not interested in pre-85 carry-over models like TS185ER or XL185.
Last time I looked, Pre-65 is also pre-1985.
-
Last time I looked, Pre-65 is also pre-1985.
Now I'm confused. I'm going to bed....good night.
-
(http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac346/albrid-3/1001426_409578219147125_810592699_n_zpsdd7c7f41.jpg) (http://s914.photobucket.com/user/albrid-3/media/1001426_409578219147125_810592699_n_zpsdd7c7f41.jpg.html)
This is one bike that would be nice to own and ride.
-
Last time I looked, Pre-65 is also pre-1985.
Now I'm confused. I'm going to bed....good night.
Even if you've missed the way I use Pre vs pre (and I admit it is subtle and I haven't spelled it out), I still thought that being "not interested in carry-over bikes" was obvious? Hence my confusion when you started talking about carry-over bikes.
-
You win, I was wrong. My apologies.
-
(http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac346/albrid-3/1001426_409578219147125_810592699_n_zpsdd7c7f41.jpg) (http://s914.photobucket.com/user/albrid-3/media/1001426_409578219147125_810592699_n_zpsdd7c7f41.jpg.html)
This is one bike that would be nice to own and ride.
That TM looks the business Dave. The only thing that could make it better would be a great big Honda thumper motor tucked in under the tank!
-
Presumably the '77 TM should be legal for Pre-78, possibly with reduced suspension travel. The motor looks a lot like a YZ125 motor of the same age.
-
Tm, give you a F-T looking at it. :P
-
why can't any YZ490 be eligible, they never changed after 84 or did they?
-
why can't any YZ490 be eligible, they never changed after 84 or did they?
enzo906 YZ Yamahas after the 1981 model are not eligible for Evo because the rear suspension has a linkage. That is why the Evo rules says No linkage suspension. The shock on Yamahas up until 1982 were connected straight to the swingarm (no linkage)
Congratulations on your 1st post it must be a record and thanks for getting it locked.
Also I emailed someone about the Evo class. In the US our class it is Evo 2. Evo 1 is Pre 78. Anyway he said the more rules you have the more cheaters you end up with. Leave the rules open to interpretion by scrutineers and the Classic MX Commission. That way no one will be prepared to spend money on a bike that might be banned.
-
enzo906 I assumed you were talking about Evo class with your question, but now realise you may have been talking about Pre 85. I think it is reasonable to keep that class as straight Pre 85, but I did notice a group in the US which also runs Pre 90 permits all KX500s, YZ490/WR500s and CR500s in the Pre 90 class because these bikes did not change at all apart from BNG.
Kevin
-
Interesting on the WR/CR/KX500s all being considered Pre-90 carry overs. The differences in the later models are well beyond what would prevent bikes in earlier era being carry-overs.
The irony with the KX500s is that the main changes are to the suspension - but the 1989 US models had the best forks...