OzVMX Forum

Marque Remarks => Maico => Topic started by: paul on February 18, 2014, 12:02:36 pm

Title: evo rules
Post by: paul on February 18, 2014, 12:02:36 pm
if you use a 82 490  engine in a earlier frame is it legal for evo (the only thing different is the extra linkage mount on the cases. but basically the same as a 81 engine?

?
Title: Re: evo rules
Post by: tony27 on February 18, 2014, 12:10:23 pm
My understanding would be no, the linkage casting means it's out of a non evo bike
Title: Re: evo rules
Post by: paul on February 18, 2014, 12:12:12 pm
cut it off with the hack saw  I suppose
Title: Re: evo rules
Post by: shelpi on February 18, 2014, 12:14:00 pm
after looking at the 81 and 82 engine schematics and part numbers its 99.9% the same so surely it comes under flow on rules ???
sorry to hijack your post rumour has it the 83/84 490 gearbox arnt strong is this true and could other gear boxs be fitted ie zabel?
Title: Re: evo rules
Post by: paul on February 18, 2014, 12:16:26 pm
I think the flow on rule would be ok 78/79/80/81,,,,82  basicly all the same .could be like the square barrel flow on as well
Title: Re: evo rules
Post by: paul on February 18, 2014, 12:17:17 pm
after looking at the 81 and 82 engine schematics and part numbers its 99.9% the same so surely it comes under flow on rules ???
sorry to hijack your post rumour has it the 83/84 490 gearbox arnt strong is this true and could other gear boxs be fitted ie zabel?

don't know sorry
Title: Re: evo rules
Post by: bigk on February 18, 2014, 12:39:20 pm
Depends on actually using some common sense when you look at it, which does not seem to be the norm here. Common sense has gone to the grave with the dinosaur.
K
Title: Re: evo rules
Post by: paul on February 18, 2014, 12:51:18 pm
some people use 82 barrels with different porting on 81 engines ,so if you know what to look for in the casting numbers on the side off the barrels ,were does that stand then
Title: Re: evo rules
Post by: Ted on February 18, 2014, 01:24:54 pm
Does a 82 Maico have linkage rear suspension? If the answer is yes then 99% of us say no it's not legal to rat bits off it. However with that ludicrous decision made the other week by the eligibility scrutineer at this years Nats I would probably fit a Lamborghini motor to it. It will pass with flying colours.
Title: Re: evo rules
Post by: KTM47 on February 18, 2014, 01:29:08 pm
The 1982 Enduro 490 was still a twin shock so they are EVO legal.  Also some 1982 Enduro 490s had reed valve barrels.
Title: Re: evo rules
Post by: KTM47 on February 18, 2014, 01:32:42 pm
Does a 82 Maico have linkage rear suspension?

Yes and No the Enduro had twin shocks.
Title: Re: evo rules
Post by: Husky500evo on February 18, 2014, 02:06:50 pm
Does a 82 Maico have linkage rear suspension? If the answer is yes then 99% of us say no it's not legal to rat bits off it. However with that ludicrous decision made the other week by the eligibility scrutineer at this years Nats I would probably fit a Lamborghini motor to it. It will pass with flying colours.

Where do you come up with your 99% figure Ted ? Your welcome to voice your own opinion, but please don't include me in your statistics, as I don't agree with you.
Title: Re: evo rules
Post by: shelpi on February 18, 2014, 02:22:39 pm
Does a 82 Maico have linkage rear suspension? If the answer is yes then 99% of us say no it's not legal to rat bits off it. However with that ludicrous decision made the other week by the eligibility scrutineer at this years Nats I would probably fit a Lamborghini motor to it. It will pass with flying colours.

Where do you come up with your 99% figure Ted ? Your welcome to voice your own opinion, but please don't include me in your statistics, as I don't agree with you.
ahh  as  a newby wanta be ;) I have the schematic her for the 490's 1981, 82 and 83 and did a quick comparison of the engine parts and except for the cylinder all other parts looked the same actually looking at the 82 now, the piston port cylinder was also offered the only deserning differance that I can see is the rear engine mount where the swingarm pivot bolt goes through ???
Title: Re: evo rules
Post by: Ted on February 18, 2014, 07:12:46 pm
Does a 82 Maico have linkage rear suspension? If the answer is yes then 99% of us say no it's not legal to rat bits off it. However with that ludicrous decision made the other week by the eligibility scrutineer at this years Nats I would probably fit a Lamborghini motor to it. It will pass with flying colours.

Where do you come up with your 99% figure Ted ? Your welcome to voice your own opinion, but please don't include me in your statistics, as I don't agree with you.

That's why I didnt say 99.9%  8)
Title: Re: evo rules
Post by: evo550 on February 18, 2014, 08:37:41 pm
if you use a 82 490  engine in a earlier frame is it legal for evo (the only thing different is the extra linkage mount on the cases. but basically the same as a 81 engine?

?
cut it off with the hack saw  I suppose
Yeah sure why not, you could also fit a set of SSS Kayaba forks and grind off the caliper mount. Why not go to a CR 500 motor, take off the waterjackets and weld on some cooling fins. Hell it's the EVO class where anything's possible...
Title: Re: evo rules
Post by: Ted on February 18, 2014, 08:55:31 pm
Seeing as you mentioned it, Ask him his opinion on a 1984 Honda CR 500 motor eligibility for Evo.
Title: Re: evo rules
Post by: asasin on February 18, 2014, 08:59:22 pm
You guys are retarded , you are going to keep poking the rule bear on here until the subject is banned from the forum :(
Title: Re: evo rules
Post by: supersenior 50 on February 18, 2014, 11:05:02 pm
With respect Ted your figure of 90% is way out. I have fielded many calls on this in the past few days and the majority would disagree with being included in your 90%.
The rule as it stands states that any later component that is modified to comply with Evo is not allowed, so most of these examples are nonsence. In fact the rule leaves only a very narrow opportunity to legally use later components.
As I read it, your objection lies with the current rule, not Dave Tanner's interpretation of it. I've had a legal opinion of the rule as it stands, and it is that the interpetration taken literally is correct.
If you disagree with the wording of the rule, the way forward is to submit a very carefully thought through submission of your proposed change. You need to be very carefull in doing this as it's so easy to fix one perceived problem and open up a host of others.
The way forward is not to make personal attacks on voluntary officials. I personally appreciate (and I'm sure others do also) your contibuition to VMX as a rider, providing bikes to others, and as a generous sponsor,however it is counterproductive to aggressively bag volunteer officials, pour fuel on this fire, and stir an already bad situation only weeks out from the event.
This forum goes ape before every Nats, and it's not helpfull
It is interesting that the Evolution class was established over 10 years ago, and over 8 Evo Nationals have been run and won. In all that time there has (to my best information) been no protests nor submissions for rule chages, so obviously it has served the sport well.
So, some people feel a tweeking of the Evo rule is needed, but world war three only weeks out from the Nats? I don't think so.
The rules are what they are. We should let the system of appointed officials, protest proceedure etc sort it out, and just get on with it.
After the event make whatever submissions you see fit.
 
Title: Re: evo rules
Post by: maico67 on February 20, 2014, 09:47:09 am
As I see it , the original question was , can you use a 1982 engine from an Alpha 1 in Evo ?
The answer as ktm47 says is simple , as long as it's off a GS 490 and stamped as such , you certainly can , as they were still twin shock on the 1982 GSs .