OzVMX Forum
Clubroom => Tech Talk => Topic started by: KTM47 on August 14, 2014, 10:31:20 am
-
Does anyone know when Ohlins upside down forks were first made for MX?
-
No but I have some
-
Mid 80's.
-
Mid 80's.
First time I ever seen them was early 90's on a Craig Dack bike, I remember an interview where he commented on the cost of his Ohlins suspension, where he said he would ride on broom sticks and Yamaha could just give him the money they spent on the forks....obviously worth more than his salary...
-
http://forums.mxtrax.co.uk/showthread.php/278255-when-did-Ohlins-first-produce-usd-forks
-
It would appear, that based on info in the mxtrax forum, Ohlins USD forks were used on works bikes in the mid 80s. The question now is when were the Ohlins forks with external compression and rebound adjusters available. I have now seen two Pre 90 bikes with Ohlins USD forks on them. Are they legal?
Please remember it is up to the entrant of the bike to prove it is legal.
Also apparently this has already been discussed previously on this forum. Can anyone find that thread.
-
When the first YZ 400 came out we did some back to back testing with a Ohlins bike and a standard bike. Back then the forks and shock cost about the same as the bike. With the same rider and tyres on both bikes they seem to average about 2.5 sec a lap faster on the Ohlins bike.
-
It would appear, that based on info in the mxtrax forum, Ohlins USD forks were used on works bikes in the mid 80s. The question now is when were the Ohlins forks with external compression and rebound adjusters available. I have now seen two Pre 90 bikes with Ohlins USD forks on them. Are they legal?
Please remember it is up to the entrant of the bike to prove it is legal.
Also apparently this has already been discussed previously on this forum. Can anyone find that thread.
Oh no not another illegal fork debate... ;)
I doubt they would be pre 90 legal, besides KTM, USD forks only became mainstream production units in '89. WP yes, Ohlins...Hmmm bit sketchy.
-
Google Hakan Carlqvist image's . You will see his Yamaha YZM with ohlins USD forks. He retired in 88 and had one maybe two years on Kawasaki after Yamaha. So do your own maths.
-
The old USD's on Carla's works Yamaha and Kurt Ljungqvist? works Husky 500, around 84/5/6 where blue, and different to the gold 46mm USD wich came out in -98.
In between there was a conventional type wich I think came out in the early 90's.
I can see if I can get accurate years.
-
Confirmed from Öhlins tech.
The old blue 43mm USD, made 83-85.
Only made for Carlqvist factory yamaha, also used on Lungqvist factory Husky.
Never for market sale.
Conventional 50mm, made 93-97, for open market.
(very expencive)
46mm gold USD, for sale from -98.
-
Google Hakan Carlqvist image's . You will see his Yamaha YZM with ohlins USD forks. He retired in 88 and had one maybe two years on Kawasaki after Yamaha. So do your own maths.
Yeah, I've seen them, but they where one off factory items, so unless the forks KTM47 saw on the two yz's where those actual forks then they aren't pre '90 legal. How's that maths..
-
The forks I saw were on a 89 CR 500 and in a photo I found somewhere of a rider on an 89 YZ 250 (with a 360 kit).
Anyway the forks I saw looked like the forks that were on a bike I just sold. It was a 2000 RWJ (semi works) CR500. So in my opinion if anyone is using these forks (or the conventional forks) they should be considered illegal. Only the forks used a works bike from the era could be legal. I know of only one such bike in Australia and it is unlikely to ever be raced.
Anyway if I see the bike again I will protest (unless I am the scrutineer, which won't need a protest).
-
Kevin
I agree with you and suggest that if you have then on a bike you need to be in a position to provide proof that they were available pre 90 and the ones you have were in fact the ones available.
I can here it at the next Nationals - "but they were Ok at the last race meeting I went to" :'(
211
-
Just measure, the old factory ones is 43, the 98 ones is 46mm
-
Kevin
I agree with you and suggest that if you have then on a bike you need to be in a position to provide proof that they were available pre 90 and the ones you have were in fact the ones available.
I can here it at the next Nationals - "but they were Ok at the last race meeting I went to" :'(
211
I'm not trying to be a smart arse here but does available mean available to the public or available to factory race teams
-
It doesn't matter who it was available to (factory or production) before 31 Dec 1989, they would still be legal if manufactured before that date.
-
It doesn't matter who it was available to (factory or production) before 31 Dec 1989, they would still be legal if manufactured before that date.
Thats not necessarily correct, works Hondas had alloy swingarms in 1974 and Yamaha had watercooling in 76 but you can't use them in their respective classes in vmx.
-
With regards Ohlin USD forks. If someone had some works Ohlin USD forks from 1986 or so maybe they could be used on a Pre90 bike. However the 46 mm Ohlin USD forks with external compression and rebound adjustment appear to be available in 1998. I just sold a bike that had these forks on it. It was raced in the 2000 MX GPs.
So it is very unlikely that 46mm Ohlin USD forks would have been made in 1989. So they should not be legal for Pre 90. If the owner of a bike with them on thinks they are legal he or she needs to be able to prove it.
-
It doesn't matter who it was available to (factory or production) before 31 Dec 1989, they would still be legal if manufactured before that date.
Thats not necessarily correct, works Hondas had alloy swingarms in 1974 and Yamaha had watercooling in 76 but you can't use them in their respective classes in vmx.
Why can't you run a alloy swingarm on a pre 75 bike, if it was built before 31 Dec 1974 whats the prob? (same with w/cooling on pre 78)
-
Water cooling is fine for pre78 just not for Evo.
-
It doesn't matter who it was available to (factory or production) before 31 Dec 1989, they would still be legal if manufactured before that date.
Thats not necessarily correct, works Hondas had alloy swingarms in 1974 and Yamaha had watercooling in 76 but you can't use them in their respective classes in vmx.
Why can't you run a alloy swingarm on a pre 75 bike, if it was built before 31 Dec 1974 whats the prob? (same with w/cooling on pre 78)
You couldn't buy an alloy swingarms for a Honda in 74 and you couldn't buy a water cooled mx bike in 76/77..
Surely you know the ruling on these?
-
Water cooling is fine for pre78 just not for Evo.
No it isn't, it's not legal until the pre 85 class even though you could buy a Shinobi water cooled head in 77...
-
Sometimes
Who gives a $&@? About what's $&@?ing legal
-
Well I care.
That's why I started the thread. I got several answers that I believe show that the 46mm Ohlin USD forks were not available until 1998. So does anyone think they should be permitted in Pre 90?
Also you can't use the excuse that everyone seems to except any modern shocks. I'm sure if someone had a shock that looked and worked totally differently from what was used when a bike was new there would be objections.
-
IMO the gold ohlins forks should not be allowed in pre 90. There are plenty of white power forks around if you must have something different.
-
Well I care.
That's why I started the thread. I got several answers that I believe show that the 46mm Ohlin USD forks were not available until 1998. So does anyone think they should be permitted in Pre 90?
Also you can't use the excuse that everyone seems to except any modern shocks. I'm sure if someone had a shock that looked and worked totally differently from what was used when a bike was new there would be objections.
What do you think of Gold Valves and Modern shocks ?
-
Water cooling is fine for pre78 just not for Evo.
No it isn't, it's not legal until the pre 85 class even though you could buy a Shinobi water cooled head in 77...
What rule outlaws them? If Shinobi built w/cooled heads in '77 (I think Noguchi did kits for yz125d's as well) then they are just an aftermarket, era specific component. Aren't they??
What rule outlaws era specific works components as well ?
-
JohnnyO needs to read what the rules say, not what they used to say or he's been told they mean.
Unless the rules specifically prohibit water cooling (as the Evo rules do), then the period-correct Shinobi water cooling kits are 100% A-OK.
Same goes for any other component, including swingarms: if it existed in the era, then it is acceptable unless the rules specifically prohibit it.
-
Well I care.
That's why I started the thread. I got several answers that I believe show that the 46mm Ohlin USD forks were not available until 1998. So does anyone think they should be permitted in Pre 90?
Also you can't use the excuse that everyone seems to except any modern shocks. I'm sure if someone had a shock that looked and worked totally differently from what was used when a bike was new there would be objections.
What do you think of Gold Valves and Modern shocks ?
While there isn't a rule that says you can, I believe anything internal should be free. So fork internals free. If you end up with external adjusters, that is not internal so NO. As for modern shocks they should look era correct.
This is my opinion.
-
JohnnyO needs to read what the rules say, not what they used to say or he's been told they mean.
Unless the rules specifically prohibit water cooling (as the Evo rules do), then the period-correct Shinobi water cooling kits are 100% A-OK.
Same goes for any other component, including swingarms: if it existed in the era, then it is acceptable unless the rules specifically prohibit it.
I'd like some clarification on that by someone with the authority and that ain't you..!
In the past those parts were never allowed, have the rules changed?
-
Read the rules. They have changed a lot in the last few years: this was most of my point.
Verbal clarification from anyone doesn't override what's written.
-
If you have something that you think is from a bikes era, don't just put it on the bike, submit it to MA, who will ask the Commission if it is ok. Don't just take anyone's word. Any request (IMO) should go through MA not individual commissioners.
There are a lot of so called X-spurts on this forum. What they say (including myself) is just their opinion and not official.
-
16.15.11 Acceptable machines and components: Pre 78 Solo
16.15.11.1 Acceptable for the Pre 78 classes:
a) Machines and components that are limited to the 1975, 1976, 1977 models alone. The only exception to this rule is where the model remains unaltered after this date.
b) Pre 78 Women’s class: acceptable machines and components are up to and including the 1977 model year. The only exception to this rule is where the model remains unaltered after this date.
16.15.11.2 Front wheel travel will not exceed 229mm (9 inches) rear wheel travel will be limited to 229mm (9 inches) measured at the axle. Rear shock absorbers will be in the original position using the original mounting points.
16.15.11.3 Engines and gearboxes must remain externally unchanged.
16.15.11.4 Carburettors; any type of pre 78 round slide may be used.
16.15.11.5 Exhaust may be modified but must follow the original lines and meet sound control regulations in GCR 16.12.
16.15.11.6 Folding footrests must be fitted.
16.15.11.7 Countershaft sprocket covers will be fitted.
16.15.11.8 Acceptable follow on models pre 78
a) CZ 125 1978, CZ400 1978,
b) Montesa VB (must comply to suspension limits),
c) Yamaha TT500 1978.
As it is written.
11.3 could be used to prevent w/cooling, but it would also rule out anything from fmf, dg webco ect.
pre 75 is the same, so if there was an alloy swingarm built in '74 that fitted a Honda, then whats stopping it.
-
That's good if those water cooled heads can be used in pre 78..
Just because works Hondas may have had box section alloy swingarms in 74 I don't think that means you can use them in pre 75.
I believe a part had to be available to the general public for it to be considered legal and no one made box section alloy arms for 73/74 Elsinores in the day.
-
Evo550's last paragraph nailed it.
If the part existed in the day, and you can prove it, then you can use it in VMX now. If there was a requirement for it to be a commonly available item, then the rules would say that.
-
Evo550's last paragraph nailed it.
If the part existed in the day, and you can prove it, then you can use it in VMX now. If there was a requirement for it to be a commonly available item, then the rules would say that.
Nathan
your right - I know; we have differed in the past but, your right, EV550 last paragraph sums it up..
DT
-
So if a part was on a works bike but you couldn't buy it in the day it's now legal?
That opens up a can of worms and also makes upside down Ohlins forks ok for pre 90.
-
So if a part was on a works bike but you couldn't buy it in the day it's now legal?
That opens up a can of worms and also makes upside down Ohlins forks ok for pre 90.
No John, I agree that an aftermarket head is ok if it was available in (say) 77 for the pre 78 class regardless if water-cooled or not.
I agree with you on the swing arm issue; if someone finds the works arm then that's another issue however it wasn't commercially available then no one is going to have the acceptable item anyway
on the forks issue - if the part was commercially available in 89 its pre 90 legal - the Ohlins in question in my opinion are not ones that were commercially available and are in fact a 90s period item. I would need to see documents on the forks if it were in my scrutineering line.
DT
-
Cool that's how I see it but a few people on here seem to think if it existed on a works bike then it's ok to use in that era..
-
So this isn't a favorite then?? ;)
(http://i1222.photobucket.com/albums/dd485/ola_martin/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsc2ee4dd3.jpg)
Actually the bike isn't ridden, I had a NOS Öhlins kit for 99 Honda, so I put it on here just for the cool looks. Not pre 89 at all...
-
Cool that's how I see it but a few people on here seem to think if it existed on a works bike then it's ok to use in that era..
All I'm asking is show me the rule that excludes works or non commercially available components of that particular era...
-
Those forks look exactly like the forks that are on the RWJ Honda CR 500 I sold a couple of weeks ago. The bike was used in the 2000 World MX Champs. So yes they wouldn't/shouldn't be legal for Pre 90.
So if anyone has them on a Pre 90 bike they probably should get a set of Pre 90 legal forks for the bike.
-
Cool that's how I see it but a few people on here seem to think if it existed on a works bike then it's ok to use in that era..
All I'm asking is show me the rule that excludes works or non commercially available components of that particular era...
No that's not the way it works. Show us the rule that says you can use works etc parts.
Anyway this thread is about Ohlin USD forks.
-
So if a part was on a works bike but you couldn't buy it in the day it's now legal?
That opens up a can of worms and also makes upside down Ohlins forks ok for pre 90.
If the part existed in the era, it is acceptable. It's "Pre-90", not "Pre-90 production racing".
If the later production Ohlins USDs are the same as the older works parts, then they qualify as a replica part. Otherwise, they are obviously not Pre-90 legal.
-
If you bothered to read the whole thread you would know that the old Ohlin USD forks on the works bikes were 43 mm and the later ones made in 1998 are 46 mm. So work the rest out for yourself.
-
If you bothered to read the whole thread you would know that the old Ohlin USD forks on the works bikes were 43 mm and the later ones made in 1998 are 46 mm. So work the rest out for yourself.
:)
-
So if a part was on a works bike but you couldn't buy it in the day it's now legal?
That opens up a can of worms and also makes upside down Ohlins forks ok for pre 90.
If the part existed in the era, it is acceptable. It's "Pre-90", not "Pre-90 production racing".
If the later production Ohlins USDs are the same as the older works parts, then they qualify as a replica part. Otherwise, they are obviously not Pre-90 legal.
The class structures and rules were designed around the bikes we ride which are Production bikes not unobtainable to the general public works bikes.
If you're going to come up with that crap then the whole set of rules needs to be rewritten as nothing on works bikes is the same spec as the bikes we ride. And I'm talking all era's...
-
Cool that's how I see it but a few people on here seem to think if it existed on a works bike then it's ok to use in that era..
All I'm asking is show me the rule that excludes works or non commercially available components of that particular era...
No that's not the way it works. Show us the rule that says you can use works etc parts.
Anyway this thread is about Ohlin USD forks.
16.15.11.1 might do it.a machine is a machine, a component is a component, irrespective of whether it's factory, aftermarket or production, the determining factor of that rule is the machine or components date of manufacture.
So if a part was on a works bike but you couldn't buy it in the day it's now legal?
That opens up a can of worms and also makes upside down Ohlins forks ok for pre 90.
If the part existed in the era, it is acceptable. It's "Pre-90", not "Pre-90 production racing".
If the later production Ohlins USDs are the same as the older works parts, then they qualify as a replica part. Otherwise, they are obviously not Pre-90 legal.
The class structures and rules were designed around the bikes we ride which are Production bikes not unobtainable to the general public works bikes.
If you're going to come up with that crap then the whole set of rules needs to be rewritten as nothing on works bikes is the same spec as the bikes we ride. And I'm talking all era's...
John, why is it your happy to accept a twin shock CR 480 in the evo class even though it wasn't available to the general public, but you would exclude someone on a commercial available, era specific bike fitted with a single non available part.
-
Brendan I accept whatever the rules allow and they are bikes built from what you and I can buy.
Works bikes never entered the equation when the rules were set out and only confuses the issue as they had completely different specifications, suspension travel, etc for the era.
-
Fair enough, That's your view. But I don't see anywhere that says components used must have been available to the public at that time.
Personally I would rather see a '74 Cr getting around with works swingarm and suspension of that era, than one with a 2014 KLP swingarm, ohlins shock and gold valve thingy's in the forks...
-
So would I but at the moment the rules don't cater for that.
If there is a doubtful part on your bike you have to prove that it was available back in the day just like the 77 Suzuki swingarm issue..
-
16.15.11.1 might do it.a machine is a machine, a component is a component, irrespective of whether it's factory, aftermarket or production, the determining factor of that rule is the machine or components date of manufacture.
[/quote]
You left some of that rule out.
16.15.11. Acceptable machines and components: Pre 78 Solo
16.15.11.1 Acceptable for Pre 78 classes
a) Machines and components that are limited to 1975, 1976 1977 models alone.
The key here is the word model. This refers to a production bike. So it should be production components only. As for using woks parts, you would have to prove they are from the year. Good luck getting the manufacturer to give you that proof. Also works bike usually changed during the season anyway.
Also where does it say a CR480 with twin shocks is legal?
-
And for the record Brenden I've never said a CR480 engined twin shock is legal, I only went in to bat for those using 82/83 forks in Evo..
-
16.15.11.1 might do it.a machine is a machine, a component is a component, irrespective of whether it's factory, aftermarket or production, the determining factor of that rule is the machine or components date of manufacture.
You left some of that rule out.
16.15.11. Acceptable machines and components: Pre 78 Solo
16.15.11.1 Acceptable for Pre 78 classes
a) Machines and components that are limited to 1975, 1976 1977 models alone.
The key here is the word model. This refers to a production bike. So it should be production components only. As for using woks parts, you would have to prove they are from the year. Good luck getting the manufacturer to give you that proof. Also works bike usually changed during the season anyway.
Also where does it say a CR480 with twin shocks is legal?
[/quote]
Works bikes are definable into year designations, especially in the pre '85/90 eras when factories started using production bikes as platforms for their factory bikes. A lot of these parts are floating around on the internet, mainly HRC bits.
Jeff Wards old factory Kawasaki's recently sold in the U.S. they could be defined into year of manufacture/use.
The reality of it is that it will probably never happen, but if someone where to push Jeff Wards 1984 title winning 125 up to the line at Coles creek in the pre '85 125 class and it consisted of parts built in or before 1985 , would they be breaking the rules? I don't think so.
The twin shock CR 480 comment stems from the Evo discussion where it was determined that if a CR 450/480/500 motor could be fitted to a CR 250 chassis without mods then it was deemed legal in the EVO class.
-
And for the record Brenden I've never said a CR480 engined twin shock is legal, I only went in to bat for those using 82/83 forks in Evo..
Yeah my bad, sorry, jumped the gun a bit there...
-
The twin shock CR 480 comment stems from the Evo discussion where it was determined that if a CR 450/480/500 motor could be fitted to a CR 250 chassis without mods then it was deemed legal in the EVO class.
So it has been determined you can put a 480 in a 250 frame has it. Show me where that is written in the GCRs or has been approved by MA.
What is written (posted) on this forum is opinion only.
-
Works bikes never entered the equation when the rules were set out and only confuses the issue as they had completely different specifications, suspension travel, etc for the era.
Not correct at all.
The rules have always catered for works bikes and components. Alan Tomkins had a SR400/450 at some of the very first VMX meetings in this country. Not to mention the works bikes/components that were raced in Australia in the day.
Add in the impossibility of determining the cut-off between "works" and "production", and there's another good reason why works bikes/components aren't outlawed.
If you can prove that it existed in the day, and the rules don't otherwise specifically prohibit it, then it is allowed.
It really is that simple.
-
Works bikes never entered the equation when the rules were set out and only confuses the issue as they had completely different specifications, suspension travel, etc for the era.
Not correct at all.
The rules have always catered for works bikes and components. Alan Tomkins had a SR400/450 at some of the very first VMX meetings in this country. Not to mention the works bikes/components that were raced in Australia in the day.
Add in the impossibility of determining the cut-off between "works" and "production", and there's another good reason why works bikes/components aren't outlawed.
If you can prove that it existed in the day, and the rules don't otherwise specifically prohibit it, then it is allowed.
It really is that simple.
What are you smoking today?
-
If the rules sought to prohibit works bikes, then the rules would seek to prohibit works bikes.
So rather than throwing rocks, show me where the rules disagree with me.
The problem you have (and keep having), is that you're working off what you think/assume the rules are about, and not what the rules actually say.
-
If the rules sought to prohibit works bikes, then the rules would seek to prohibit works bikes.
So rather than throwing rocks, show me where the rules disagree with me.
The problem you have (and keep having), is that you're working off what you think/assume the rules are about, and not what the rules actually say.
I didn't say the rules prohibit works bikes I said they weren't structured around them. Read my post again..
A 74 works bike had 8" suspension travel front and rear and box section alloy swingarm. Where does that fit in with our pre 75 rules?
Alan Tomkins had a 76 SR 250 and SR400 in the early to mid 90's when vintage racing only had pre 75 and earlier so how did the rules cater for his bikes?
I'm not against works bikes racing, I love the things it's just I don't agree the rules allow the use of certain parts that appeared on works bikes but we're unavailable to be purchased at that time. Otherwise I'd build a 74 TM400 with a big chunky box section alloy swingarm, laid down shocks and 38mm leading axle forks..but how far would I get at scrutineering?
-
The extra travel of the pre-75 works bikes is dealt with by having a specific limit on suspension travel.
Fits perfectly.
Your tricked up 74 model would breeze through scrutiny if you made it from Pre-75 parts. If you used post-74 parts, then you have an obvious problem.
I am against modern, chunky alloy swingarms on old bikes. But if they're a pre-75 part (or are a replica of a pre-75 part) then they are sweet.
-
The extra travel of the pre-75 works bikes is dealt with by having a specific limit on suspension travel.
Fits perfectly.
Your tricked up 74 model would breeze through scrutiny if you made it from Pre-75 parts. If you used post-74 parts, then you have an obvious problem.
I am against modern, chunky alloy swingarms on old bikes. But if they're a pre-75 part (or are a replica of a pre-75 part) then they are sweet.
I'm with John. What are you smoking Nathan??????
I'm sure if you fronted with a bike like John described you would not breeze through scrutineering. Even if you had documents (that in your opinion) proved the parts were available before 31st Dec 1974. It would depend on whether or not the scrutineer excepted that alleged proof.
So please make the bike so we can say I told you so.
-
So this isn't a favorite then?? ;)
(http://i1222.photobucket.com/albums/dd485/ola_martin/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsc2ee4dd3.jpg)
Actually the bike isn't ridden, I had a NOS Öhlins kit for 99 Honda, so I put it on here just for the cool looks. Not pre 89 at all...
Great looking bike ola_martin. But even you admit it isn't Pre 90 legal.
The point of the thread has been proved these forks aren't legal for Pre 90.
-
The extra travel of the pre-75 works bikes is dealt with by having a specific limit on suspension travel.
Fits perfectly.
Your tricked up 74 model would breeze through scrutiny if you made it from Pre-75 parts. If you used post-74 parts, then you have an obvious problem.
I am against modern, chunky alloy swingarms on old bikes. But if they're a pre-75 part (or are a replica of a pre-75 part) then they are sweet.
I'm with John. What are you smoking Nathan??????
I'm sure if you fronted with a bike like John described you would not breeze through scrutineering. Even if you had documents (that in your opinion) proved the parts were available before 31st Dec 1974. It would depend on whether or not the scrutineer excepted that alleged proof.
So please make the bike so we can say I told you so.
I'm just going on what the rules say.
If John's bike was made from 1974 model bits, then it doesn't matter if they came from a production MX bike, a works MX bike, a road bike, a speedway bike or any other sort of bike - its legal.
If they came from a 1975 model bike (that isn't a carry-over bike/part), then the bike is illegal because it has major components from an illegal bike - and the "works bike" stuff is irrelevant.