OzVMX Forum
Clubroom => General Discussion => Topic started by: DJRacing on July 21, 2008, 07:16:10 pm
-
I was thinking about the evo class (we call it pre81 over here) and the poor Honda boys dont have an open classer unless you are lucky enough to have a big bore Mugen barrel and head. I think that is a shame and was wondering if the 1981 CR450 barrel and head fitted on the 1980 CR250 bottom end? I know this is probably bad taste and goes against the grain(especially for me) but it just seems a shame that the evo era open class in basically void of Honda's. The '81 CR450 wasnt a good bike and over here it is rare to see one racing. I dont know if many race over in Oz but with the CR480 and 500 being such good bikes it probably leaves the '81 450 unwanted and unused. Now this is where I really do want to kick my own arse even for just thinking it, but can the '81 450 motor fit in the 1980 CR250 frame? Shit I know what I'm saying and its just making me cringe, even my beer is tasting strange now, but unless you have loads of $$$ for mugen equipment the Honda boys must feel left out in the cold.
A question for you..... "If a 1980 CR250 with a 1981 CR450 motor turned up at a club day would you let it run as a evo open class bike"?
(VMX gods forgive me as I know not what I say)
-
DJ,
being a Honda, you only need it to be a 125 or 250 :D
to be competitive against the open class bike's of the others, ;D
Noel
-
Can the '81 450 motor fit in the 1980 CR250 frame?
Gee's that would be nice. I have 3x CR450 engines in the shed, just the thought of your idea gets the mind wondering into dangerous thought pattens. Although the most weird idea I ever came across was a bloke who claimed he was slotting a CR500 engine into an Ultralight aircraft. Madness. ;D
-
Can the '81 450 motor fit in the 1980 CR250 frame?
Gee's that would be nice. I have 3x CR450 engines in the shed, just the thought of your idea gets the mind wondering into dangerous thought pattens. Although the most weird idea I ever came across was a bloke who claimed he was slotting a CR500 engine into an Ultralight aircraft. Madness. ;D
I know I said the CR500 was a good motor but I dont know if I would trust it that much??
Noel, I know with you piloting a 125 the big bores would be in trouble ;D
-
DJ there has been a guy here turn up with a 480 motor (basically same as 450) in a 250 frame and it got canned straight away. Personally i would allow it at a club day but it does go against the grain of the rules in vintage racing. And yeah it would be good to see some big bore Honda's in the Evo class.
-
Hey Quicky have you got any other CR450 bits? I'm restoring one and there's a few parts missing.
-
You're drinking thinners again DJ, that would account for the silly thoughts and the funny taste
-
Hey Quicky have you got any other CR450 bits? I'm restoring one and there's a few parts missing.
Im restoring one too mate. I think I have everything I need except swingarm bush kit and some decent plastics. PM me your needs I dont have much in way spares ( just engines ). Might have something you need.
-
How did Bigk build his. Itsnt that a 450 barrel on 250 bottom. Or something like that.
-
Fit a CB500 /4* in the frame would be legal. *(The 500 iron head DOHC twin was a lump) ;) Tim
-
That was a big effort to do as gmc had to change the bolt holes to start with.
-
That was a big effort to do as gmc had to change the bolt holes to start with.
Was the 450 crank used also Brad?
-
Maico31, I can understand the 480 getting the short shift, but the 450 motor wasnt the best and since it was only made for one year it just seems a waist (like Quicky says, he has 3 of them in the shed doing nothing). Could it be called a Noycey rep? But only with the 450 motor.
(I feel ill, what the hell am I saying :-[ ) Yep your right of course about that it is against the grain of VMX and I hate the idea, but still at the end of the day....... it would be good to see more bikes out there doing it and if only for club days a Noycey Rep would be a Honda lovers wet dream (wouldnt it?? ;) )
Brad we run out of turps 3 days ago but I found this stuff called methys.... :-\ ;D
-
I'd love to have a 450 Honda in a 250 twin shock frame, it'd be a trick bike. I even had a 360 Mugen for a while but it was a slug against 490 Maico's and YZ465's so i sold it and bought a Maico.
-
Thats exactly what Im saying Maico31, if I was a honda guy I would feel that there is just something missing, and its the evo big bore. I bet there are a few Honda boys out there that would like a bike like this.
I have to stop drinking this methys..... I cant find the safety of the yammie room ??? ;D
-
I was going to bring up this same suggestion as DJ's in the rules adjustment thread , but thought that I would be howled down as a heretic. Graham Noyce won the '79 World 500 MX title on a twin shock Honda , so I believe that you should be able to build a replica of this bike & it should be legal in evo class . The same should apply to Kawasakis , as the last open class twin shock mx bike was the '79 SR400 works bike . If the bike existed , you should be able to race a replica of it . Isn't that what all the HL 500s running around are supposed to be ? I do think though that the frame should be one originally designed with twin shocks , so as to avoid creations like the Dutch twinshock class bikes & the '82 CR480RC Honda with the twin shocks fitted that was racing at Crawford river a few years ago .
-
You can fit a 450 cylinder onto a 250 bottom end, but that in itself is a huge job let alone getting the cases to take a longer stroke crankshaft. The crankshaft..... now there's another story altogether. Do it if you want to have a big big dollar engine with tolerances so close that with one big end failure and you would have to start all over again. I only did it to make my RC visually as authentic as I possibly could. Still, this bike is not a legal evo bike as the cylinder came from a single shock bike. It would be much easier to do the 480 engine/250RZ/RA thing. You would have to turn the 480 cylinder to a side port if you want to use an RZ chasis. I would have built one as a racer by now except for the eligibility nazi's down here. Flogging a dead horse here, but it would be legal to fit an '84 Husky CR500 motor, YZ465 43mm forks & twin leading shoe front brake to an RZ and be legal, although be it no longer a Honda, but illegal to use a CR480 engine, 43mm forks & twin leading shoe front brake. Go figure. It's all just semantics and causes unneccessary stress which will only drive people away from the sport. I say build what you want as long as it's air cooled, drum brake & no linkage. It really should be that simple. I shall now step down from the soapbox.
Cheers,
K
-
We've got a 1980 CR250RA fitted with a Mugen powered 1982 CR480RB motor which is nearly finished. If you're going to Conondale DJ I might be able to sneak you a look. I agree with BigK about the evo rules, if you can build a HL replica, why not an RC or SR or OW replica?
-
I tend to agree, if it's air cooled, twin shocked and drum braked then let them run it as long as the frame and suspension is from an evo bike. It still won't be any better than a 490 Maico or well set up YZ465 and it'll add some colour to the open evo class.
-
Honda do have an open class evo bike, it's called an xl500s, I know it's slow, heavy,poorly suspended and evil handling........but what Honda's aren't?
-
If the bike existed , you should be able to race a replica of it . Isn't that what all the HL 500s running around are supposed to be ?
I think I agree.
If you are allowed to use genuine works parts (or replicas), then what of the later production parts that are replicas of the works parts?
I know I'm moving away from DJ's question, but look at a 1977 version of the Yamaha OW27 - presumably, I could fabricate a replica OW alloy swing arm for my production YZ125D and everyone would be happy for it to be used on a pre-78 race bike.
But if I fitted a swing arm from a YZ125F - which looks just like the older OW27 part - then I'd be howled down as a dirty cheat...
It seems that we all think it's OK to use a "new replica", while a 30 year old replica is not OK?? ???
I'm sure there are many, many more examples out there.
-
We can't reinvent history. Honda didn't have an open classer that legally fits into the rules. Get over it and race 250 or move to another brand. With the HL comparison, anybody could buy an HL back in 77-78 but RC Hondas were never to my knowledge available to the public. In any case, the CR450/480 is a very different engine to the RC.
The Geoff Holmes legacy lives on.
-
We've got a 1980 CR250RA fitted with a Mugen powered 1982 CR480RB motor which is nearly finished. If you're going to Conondale DJ I might be able to sneak you a look. I agree with BigK about the evo rules, if you can build a HL replica, why not an RC or SR or OW replica?
There is a very cool article on sucha bike in the (dare i say it :-\) Classic dirt bike magazine issue # 2
Some Pom has built 2 Graham Noyce replicas using 1980 CR 250RA rollers , fitted with a CR 480 motor and A CR 450 motor .
Very cool looking bikes , i think its a great concept .
As far as rules go Personally if you can show that such a bike was available Factory works bike or home built special within the era that the class you wish to race it wheres the problem.
Factory bikes were always a special part of our sport and the technology was generally a year or two ahead of the production bikes.
Most of us wished we owned one in the day , so should you now have the skills , finances /resources to build a replica or even own an original i believe you should be able to race it in the era it was raced in the day.
So does DJs Nogouchi fit into pre 75 as a factory special ;) :-X :-X
-
rules inplace are the ones we have to stick with
i have have a home built dirt track bike with a 1940 350 art senior ariel motor and box.plunger bsa bantam forks and stearing head.1950s ariel swing arm rear end.1950s speedway jap fuel tank home built diamond.my brother built it from bits hanging around in the shed in 1968.this bike was racing in nsw dirt track meetings befor 1970 but i cant ride in pre70 as it looks like a slider.so the bike has to go in races with new laydown long track jawas,slider race only.but i am still fighting this one.
.
-
The problem lies TM Bill, with a few anal retentive people who are sticklers for rules, which are way overly restrictive in my opinion. Unfortunatley these seem to be the people who make the rules or are involved in policing the rules. Apparantley, and this is only heresay, that here in Victoria there is a faction that even wants to outlaw a 1984 Husqvarna CR/XC 500 from the evolution class because they deem it to be a pre '85 bike even though they are air cooled, non linkage and drum brake! They don't think it is fair to race this bike against a 1980 RM400T for example, which is Suzuki's last evo legal bike. This is the kind of frivolous crap which will find it's way into all classes as they go forward and will drive more people away from the sport rather than bring people into it. Who wants to have stress over their bike at a race meeting? The blokes who want to cheat will find a way to do it no matter what and won't be the blokes getting the rough end of the stick as they will do it covertly. Building a big bore evo bike and presenting it for everyone to see is not cheating, just someone expressing their passion for Honda VMX bikes. The evo class just seems to be the big issue at the moment and the issues are generally stupid, eg: I can use a set of YSS piggy back shocks with 60 clicks of adjustments which were made last week, but can't use a 25 year old 480cc motor in my Honda. The evo rules should be simple: air cooled, non linkage, drum brake. The reason most of us do this is not for the $2.00 trophy at the end of the year, but for fun and relaxation away from the daily grind of work & general living stress. The current trend of having to prove your bike is legal or defending a protest from someone who you could probably beat no matter what you were riding is not in "the spirit" of VMX racing in my opinion. Air cooled, drum brake, no linkage (simple & sweet) = evolution fun. Build it , bring it race it.
Cheers,
K
-
Big K why ride on the back of the piggyback? Shocks are classed as consumables like rims , grips, pegs, exhaust etc. Unless the rules stipulate 60 clicks adjustment is to much , people will opt for it. So far I have not seen anybody reaching down to the adjusters while racing ;D. If someone wants non adjustable shocks , they can have them also. But also bear in mind adjusters ( even high low speed by Fox ) where around since the Konis.
There will always be sour grapes from somewhere, especially when you beat them.
What I did in the end , I just parked all my bikes and want waist a Dollar on a licence , just to argue with some winging professor at the racetrack.
What ever you do , in the end you still turn that throttle and use your brain to win ;) And if you are not into winnig , why race ? Save your money and go trail riding , restoring or whatever you enjoy. My only joyfull outing on a VMX bike is now Classic Dirt for that simple reason. " If I spend all that money , I want some classic fun and no hazzles" ;)
-
No disrespect to you or your shocks Walter, just an example of how silly the rules are IN MY OPINION, and MY OPINION sees a set of new adjustable shocks having more of an advantage than a big bore engine, racing against other big bore engines. I personally don't care what shocks or forks are on a bike UNTIL someone with a pair of your adjustable 1 week old shocks, and modern tapered handle bars on his legal by the rules evo bike, sooks about me with my 25 year old 480 motor from a single shock bike not being legal to race. This is just an example and has not actually happened, but is the only reason I have NOT built a big bore EVO Honda to race coz I just know it would happen and I do not want the stress. I have however built a 360 Honda using a standard cylinder & head and could use it as a cheat bike if I chose, to as it is visually the same as a standard 250. But in "the Spirit" of VMX racing we will race it in the over 300cc class. We've gotten off the original topic here so I still say you should be able to build your big bore Honda bike and race it in the evo class, after all it fits the basic rules of air cooled, no linkage, drum brake. I have no desire to do it other than fact to have another different bike on the track for people to see. I am more than happy riding my Husky big bore evo bike, but have been challenged about it having a twin leading shoe front brake on it even though according to the rules it's legal as it's from an '83 air cooled, non linkage, drum brake Husky XC500. See how petty some people are? I personally can't ride for shit and only do it for the fun of racing with my mates, but if the bullshit continues as it is, what fun will it be? When I look at a bike, I usually marvel at the extent some one has gone to to present their pride & joy and the obvious passion involved. I never look at a bike scrutinising what is "legal" or not and whether they are going to beat me on an "illegal" bike, if they beat me , they beat me because they can ride better than me. I can see this debate will continue to go nowhere and am getting a headache, so I won't say anymore on the subject, suffice to say it should be simple as AIR COOLED, NON LINKAGE, DRUM BRAKE! Forget the other BS.
Cheers,
K
-
You know, I've been thinking about this, and I reckon we're all taking it far too seriously... And by 'it', I mean the whole rules/eligibility thing, not just DJ's question...
At Crawford River, I saw a bike that was clearly illegal for the class it was racing in - and I'm not talking about trivial shit like bolted vs riveted sprockets, I'm talking about simple, obvious and significant stuff like being way over capacity for the class...
And you know what?
Nobody gives a shit.
At first, I was offended by the blatant rule bending, but then I looked at the other bike the bloke had with him, and I figured that he was just trying to maximise his rides. He was not a podium threat (at least not on the 'cheater' bike) and he was out there enjoying himself among riders on otherwise similar machinery.
What would be gained by kicking up a fuss? Nuthin'!
What would be lost by kicking up a fuss? Heaps.
And I think that most people take a similar view.
So here we are on the forum, tying ourselves in knots over trivial stuff, while out in the real world we all ignore the letter of the law and go with what feels right.
-
Where do you stop?
Why not just buy a YZ465, a late model WR500 and an Ohlins aftermarket PDS shock that was never fitted OE. Then have someone build you a frame that has the dimensions and angles of a late model motocrosser. Bolt the WR engine into the frame, set the 465 front end up, or if you have the $ buy a 44mm FOX front end, weld a couple of mounts for the PDS shock and you have an air cooled, drum brake non linkage EVO racer.
-
You know, I've been thinking about this, and I reckon we're all taking it far too seriously... And by 'it', I mean the whole rules/eligibility thing, not just DJ's question...
At Crawford River, I saw a bike that was clearly illegal for the class it was racing in - and I'm not talking about trivial shit like bolted vs riveted sprockets, I'm talking about simple, obvious and significant stuff like being way over capacity for the class...
And you know what?
Nobody gives a shit.
At first, I was offended by the blatant rule bending, but then I looked at the other bike the bloke had with him, and I figured that he was just trying to maximise his rides. He was not a podium threat (at least not on the 'cheater' bike) and he was out there enjoying himself among riders on otherwise similar machinery.
What would be gained by kicking up a fuss? Nuthin'!
What would be lost by kicking up a fuss? Heaps.
And I think that most people take a similar view.
So here we are on the forum, tying ourselves in knots over trivial stuff, while out in the real world we all ignore the letter of the law and go with what feels right.
Nothing personal NathanS
I know very little about engines of vmx bikes ,but this is blantant disregard for preserving an era of VINTAGE MOTO CROSS is big time wrong. :o
Its a bit like cooking a fruit cake with no f,,,,,,g fruit in it.
Some people just don't get it. ::)
Its about saving the bike that it was in the past..How can VMX bikes ever survive when people have a slack attitude towards what goes in the frame etc and ends up being a bittsa..please explain.
-
This is a good argument for Pre 82 class and then we could argue about follow on models
-
VMX247,
The bike was 100% era-legal, apparently in excellent original condition, and VERY close to stock - so there's zero doubt that the era was beautifully preserved - it was just the wrong engine capacity. In the world of rule-bending, this is far more blatant than 'those forks are from an 79 model, so they're not legal for pre-78 racing'.
There's no doubt that the rider was technically breaking the rules, but while he was running mid-pack (or worse), then it was a victimless crime.
Its not something I think should be encouraged, but given the actual set of circumstances, I was more than happy to let it slide.
If I'd kicked up a stink, then - apart from the immediate grief at the event - the guy would be likely to leave a an very neat, unusual bike at home in the future, and we'd all be poorer for it.
And yes, I'd probably have a very different attitude if he was at the pointy end of the field.
-
There is always going to be some VMX einstein out there trying to re invent the VMX wheel :D
thanks folks, lets hope that at least 80% of us keep it original. 8)
-
I am amused at some of the answers here. When I posted this, I was thinking "wouldnt it be a cool bike", a big Red twin shocked Honda open classer, and yet it has gone from that, to rules, to butchering bikes.
Yet even the people who state how horrible and absurd this is, have bikes that have been butchered, altered motors, and more to the point modern performance parts on there own bikes. Please tell me in what vmx era where all the bike remained unaltered? Even back in the day how many bikes remained stock?
When you speak of thinks like "re-inventing", I hardly think that a 30yr old chassis with a 29yr old motor is re-inventing something. In 1981 it could be done. How about putting a V-force reed valve in that same motor? Re-invent reeds? or is this a blatant disreguard for preserving an era?
The era we are talking about obviously is the Evo class, which is a form of what we call Vintage motocross is it not? yet I can go out and buy a brand new Suzuki ER which is air cooled, twin shocked and has drum brakes and can be bought new in 2008. How is this revelant you ask? Will at least a 30yr old Honda with a 29yr old motor in it is still an old bike.
One of the best things about Vintage Motocross are the hybrids that get built. Thank goodness Torsten Hallman wasnt a closed minded guy that believed that what ever motor was in a frame it had to stay that way.
Before you start off with the rules and regulations that a bike like this was never done, take a look at footage of the '79 open GP's, it is only this "generation" that says it cant be done or that it is against the law??
How original are sidecars? For the life of me I cant remember ever been able to walk down to the local bike shop and buy a Vintage sidecar, but yet we have them. Where did those motors come from?
Arent we lucky that engine manufacturers havnt got a clause stating that their motors are not allowed to be changed into a different frames.
I'm all for preserving an era, but I am also for bikes being built wether it be a stock bike or a hybrid, the more bikes the more the era is preserved.
Remember at the end of the day if someone was riding a Honda CR450 twin-shocked bike, do you really think he or she is going to have less fun than someone on a picture perfect resto bike?
-
DJ is spot on when he says it would be a cool bike and that's really my point, and I for one would glad to see a few out there racing. The rules should be a guide and have certain parameters, but not anal and restrictive to the point of sillyness. New modernised shocks, tapered handlebars, modern mufflers on fourstrokes etc is allowed, (how many XL500/KLX250 did you see with nice big shiny modified CRF450 Pro Circuit mufflers in 1980), which in itself is a contradiction to the so called "spirit of the era", but no one seems to give any of that a second thought. But the poor guy who want's to have a big bore evo Honda, for no other reason than he is a Honda enthusiast, gets hammered by everyone. I have a replica RC450 which I've never had plans to ride, but I just might take it to a race meeting to see what would happen. I'm sure I'd get some amusement out of watching the eligibilty police have kittens at the thought of it hitting the track, WHICH IS WRONG. It is air cooled, twin shock , drum brake in a 1979 chassis. Tell me really what the difference is to a 1980 RM400 except that you had to be Graham Noyce or Brad Lackey to get a ride one back then. I could put an '84mm piston from another make of motorcycle in my RM400 which would take it to near 460cc, or fit a reed valve to my piston port engine to make it more manageable, say nothing and have no stress, but transplant a 450/480 engine into my CR250 and watch the "rule nazi's"go apeshit. Stupid. It truly does seem to be "different rules for different schools". No disrespect to you Bahnsy but your latest offering on this thread is just plain ridiculous and is far from being constructive or helpful.
Cheers,
K
-
Roger Roger DJracing ,
I get concerned about some attitudes(none in particular) who don't have any care and pride in preserving the era too well,thats all.Over and Out
ps have just read through again and understand also that if its on a bitsa bike at least it has been preserved and not in some chook shed as a perch,but ya gotta lovem 99% original though. ;)
-
I have a replica RC450 which I've never had plans to ride, but I just might take it to a race meeting to see what would happen. I'm sure I'd get some amusement out of watching the eligibilty police have kittens at the thought of it hitting the track, WHICH IS WRONG. It is air cooled, twin shock , drum brake in a 1979 chassis.
In the other thread, everyone seemed to agree that drum brake forks from a non-Evo bike were OK when fitted to an Evo bike.
So why would an air-cooled motor from a non-Evo bike suddenly be a big drama?
In more general terms, we're never going to be able to faithfully recreate any specific era.
Look at vintage road racing, historic car racing, historic car rallying, etc etc - in every case, there are machines built far in excess of what anyone ever did/could do back in the day. If nothing else, tyres and brake pad materials are heaps better, and you're never going to stop that.
This happens for a number of reasons, but the two main ones are a desire to be as competitive as possible, and simple parts availability. The competitiveness side of things can be debated, but the parts availability thing is crucially important.
For example: Everyone keeps bringing up shock absorbers ("what about those brand-new, fully adjustable shocks!?"), but could you imagine the shit-fight that would occur if we mandated that all pre-75 bikes had to run shocks made before 1975??
One of the constant themes of the VMX rules is that there have been no restrictions on consumables (tyres, sprockets, handlebars, etc), and minimal restrictions on the semi-consumables (shocks, exhausts, etc).
If we now feel that those components have developed to a point that they're no-longer VMX-friendly, then that's fine... But if that's the case, we need to sit down and collectively decide what is and is-not acceptable. To just shoot from the hip and demand that our individual point of view is THE single correct point of view is going to get us nowhere (unless you consider forum bickering to be somewhere...).
-
Reading through this thread in only assume a project I have collected the parts to build will also be illegal. :( I was putting an RM465 engine into a spare 1980 PE250 frame I had. I was counting on Aircooled, twin shocks, drum brakes... Legal.... ??? I gather it wont be.
-
Hey now this is more like it!!! A shit fight over what is what, :D Simple dump the name and class called "EVO" and start from scratch, using your Aircooled, ((Shit there goes me Suzuki 750cc Water Bottle engine..) Non linkage ( A swinging arm would be technically a linkage??) Drum brake (back to my Wattle Bottle cause I got a 4 leading shoe dual cable set up out of one here.)
COME ON sort this shit out will you, You have too have cut offs somewhere, And well if your machine unfortunately misses the cut ............. find others in the same boat and see what class you can all run in or submit a class to try out at a meeting.
I have said before that if YOU think your machine stretches the eligibility rules for what ever class , IT MOST LIKELY DOES!!!!!!!!!!!!! Build your bikes to suit the existing era and rules, If you have to go to lengths and fit ultra late model bits and pieces for reasons like "I need this suspension cause the other was too rough etc" GO RACE A MODERN BIKE
F##K ME THIS IS OLDER ERA RACING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When will people start to comprehend this!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cheers Tim754
-
Rule 18.7.11.1 evolution class shall be run as a national championship and can be independent of other classic motorcross classes
18.7.12.1 Bikes will be OEM
18.7.12.2 Modifications converting later equipment to comply will not be allowed
18.7.12.3 ALL COMPONENTS will be of the period the machine was manufactured
a) No linkage suspension
b) No Disc brakes
c) Air cooled motors
Pretty much spells it all out to me
-
The rules Tim are STUPID when you can legally use 43mm forks & engine from an '81 YZ465 as it is an evo legal bike but not the 43mm forks & engine from an '82 CR480 becuase its a single shock bike. What is the difference? The parts being substituted are virtually identical. Most of us would agre there is no difference, but there are the few who beg to differ and seem to thrive on the conflict and cause a lot of undue stress. Once again this seems to only affect anyone who wants to build a big bore Honda, which is what this thread started out as. A big bore Honda EVO bike is in the "spirit of the era" as thats what the premier class was back then, 500cc world championship. If I had an '84 CR500 Husky evo legal bike and an RC450 replica Honda bike, which is at present not legal, it would make no difference to how fast I am or for most people. This is the point, it's not about cheating, it's about OLD MX BIKES and peoples tastes. There are a lot of '81 490 Maico's with '82 (single shock) reed cylinders fitted, but once again no one seems to care about that. I'll try to shut up now but for some reason this really gets me wound up, and I don't even want to race a Honda!
K
-
18.7.12.3 ALL COMPONENTS will be of the period the machine was manufactured
So new shocks, pipes and PBLs are out then. ::) But no their not. ???
-
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-4/1252864/79NoyceHondain91.jpg)
This bike is legal by our current evo class rules as it meets all the requirements . It is all O.E.M '79 Honda with no later model parts & was raced by Graham Noyce in '91 at a British twinshock meeting , when this picture was taken.
-
Ah yes, but if you built a replica of it the rule Nazis would have your balls for garters. You can copy a HL but not an RC. Go figure. You got me bigk 100%.
-
OK build one (or lots) and use it (or them), maybe just maybe others will see your way. Seems you have some proof there of your plight/position. Better even you source out and buy an original one like in the piccy.
So what would be a set of criteria for this class that would be acceptable to the largest amount of current and also to future participants?? The overall thing being this is an era of racing that finished over twenty years ago so the machines should be original or fair and clear representations of what you could buy or build* at that time. Did anyone build and use a big bore Honda like the 450/480/500? The photo shown may be presentable proof of the OEM bit, or was that a private special ? Still you say it is 1979.
Viper meeting at Ravenswood a couple of week ago had a lot of pleased smiles, but some lowish grids. Getting this sort of basic "I wanna run this bike" stuff cleared up now will help bring those big entrant numbers back again.
Did anyone build or manufacture after market frames to suit the big Honda Two or fourstrokes of the time?
-
I'm in no way qualified to comment on the technical aspects, but the idea of the big bore Honda and the proposals/hypotheticals put forth seem to be in keeping with the spirit of VMX.
So, why not nut it out and put your proposal on paper and submit to the powers that be?
There are changes to rules and regs from time to time and they must have a start somewhere.
As good as this forum is it's apparent it carries no weight when it comes to pushing ideas, agendas and proposals with the Ruling Bodies; the noise debate was evidence of this.
I've only breezed over the regs because my bikes comply. I'm not able to build a frankenbike so I won't bother to try.
But I noticed certain models of bikes are excluded or included for various reasons.
Your ideas sound good with regard to the big Hondas. Those of you who feel this can and should be done should submit the idea. Move a motion and second it (sorry, too simplistic I know).
But arguing it here on the forum won't actually make it happen.
-
The important thing to learn here is the difference between a debate and an arguement, 2 completely different things.
-
The important thing to learn here is the difference between a debate and an arguement, 2 completely different things.
True, true. My apologies if "arguing" sounded harsh. Debate is a far better word.
No-one is arguing so far. Thanks for pointing it out. :-[
-
For a class that was developed to keep it all simple, without all of the rule dramas that were supposedly bogging down pre '75, you guys seem to be all getting into a hissy fit over this. In Bahnsys rule thread the thinking seemed to settle on the original Rick Doughty concept of twin shock, drum brakes and air cooling. It was further discussed that allowing later forks as long as they were from a drum braked bike. Everyone cheered, God was in his Heaven and the Evolution class rules were sorted.
And then after that was settled, along came the mythical bloke who wanted to race a bike that didn't exist as a production bike using the excuse that the works team had something similar, why not him? The whole problem with this discussion is that the people arguing the point to include the twin shock 450 Honda are those with a vested interest due to having built bikes. If I decided to build a bike comprising of an '83 model geard primary drive, reed valve SC500 Maico engine fitted to a '78 Magnum frame you watch the 'rule nazis' jump on me. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't consider building a Maico like that as I don't think it's kosher. Neither do I think that building that Honda is kosher either.
In the sense of performance the twin shock 450 isn't going to be any better or worse than any other bike in the class but my mythical Maico would be. If the Honda's deemed to be OK than so is my Maico, an RM 500 powered '79 model Suzuki or a KX500 powered '78 Kawasaki A5 and any other bike built using a later period air cooled engine in a kosher frame. My point is that you have to have a set parameter. If building hot rods that didn't exist in the day is what you guys want then why not just introduce the Dutch way of doing it because if you don't have set limits, it'll happen.
-
I would Firko but have you ever worn Klogs, fork they're uncomfortable.
-
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-4/1252864/Noycereplica.jpg)
Here is the Noyce replica that was featured in the Classic Dirt Bike mag. I think that it is a great looking bike . I don't have an axe to grind here as I ride '81 Maicos or '84 Huskys , but I sympathize with the Honda guys.
I used to be a big Honda fan until I discovered real red ;D . I just think that if you can show proof that a bike did exist , then you should be able to build & race a replica of it .
-
There are already a couple of big bore '79 Kawaskai A5's running around here in Victoria(440cc), and the lengths one guy went to keep his legal were unbelievable, and in reality it should have been much easier for him and would have been said for the "nazi's". He still gets the flack even though the bike is 100% evo legal. If someone wanted to build a 500 powered '79 Suzuki, I say let them, BUT they don't have to. You can already get 460cc with your 79/80 RM400 fairly simply, and without anymore cost than a piston kit and bore to suit, so why would you? You also don't have to build your franken bike style Maico as the '81 490 is evo legal as well as being the legend it is. The original thread was about having a cool big bore Honda to race in the evo class, and the only people who would want to do it are Honda enthusiasts, who have no option but to use at least a cylinder from an '81 450 or '83 480 to keep their bike a true Honda, otherwise it would not be what they want. I'm sure you could meld a cylinder from another brand on to a Honda bottom end and be legal, but it's no longer a Honda and that is not the point for the devout Honda man. I have never had plans to ride mine and it was only ever built to look at because it's a cool big bore VMX bike, so no I don't have a vested interest in getting the bikes evo legal, even though IMO, they should be. The Dutch way is not the right way, and is not in the "spirit of the era". The big bore Honda's existed, just like the SR Kawasaki's and OW Yamaha's. Have a look at Terry Good's mxworksbike website and you can see them from 1976 onwards. It's only the inconsistency and grey area's of the rules which prevent these bikes from being legal and it's the same inconsistency and grey area's which allow others in as legal. It shouldn't be this hard and can only do harm to the sport. Air cooled, drum brake, no linkage. Should be that simple.
K
-
I think the main difference between the Rc replica and the hl replica is that a production version of the Yamaha was avaliable to the public, not so with any works honda's.
The solution would be to put a XL motor in a Cr frame.....ya gotta love them fourstrokes.
-
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-4/1252864/79SR400.jpg)
Here is a picture of the last twinshock open class bike that Kawasaki built . It is a '79 SR400 works bike . I am not sure who the rider would have been , but I think it might have been Gaylon Mosier . I would love to see someone build a replica of this bike as I think that it is a beautiful machine & would add some colour & variety to the evo class if the rules allowed it . At first glance, it looks that a close copy could be made using a KLX250 rolling frame ,a KX420 motor & A5 sidepanels & rear guard . The swingarm is the only part that appears to be totally different from production parts .
-
What is a repThere are already a couple of big bore '79 Kawaskai A5's running around here in Victoria(440cc), and the lengths one guy went to keep his legal were unbelievable, and in reality it should have been much easier for him and would have been said for the "nazi's". He still gets the flack even though the bike is 100% evo legal. If someone wanted to build a 500 powered '79 Suzuki, I say let them, BUT they don't have to. You can already get 460cc with your 79/80 RM400 fairly simply, and without anymore cost than a piston kit and bore to suit, so why would you? You also don't have to build your franken bike style Maico as the '81 490 is evo legal as well as being the legend it is. The original thread was about having a cool big bore Honda to race in the evo class, and the only people who would want to do it are Honda enthusiasts, who have no option but to use at least a cylinder from an '81 450 or '83 480 to keep their bike a true Honda, otherwise it would not be what they want. I'm sure you could meld a cylinder from another brand on to a Honda bottom end and be legal, but it's no longer a Honda and that is not the point for the devout Honda man. I have never had plans to ride mine and it was only ever built to look at because it's a cool big bore VMX bike, so no I don't have a vested interest in getting the bikes evo legal, even though IMO, they should be. The Dutch way is not the right way, and is not in the "spirit of the era". The big bore Honda's existed, just like the SR Kawasaki's and OW Yamaha's. Have a look at Terry Good's mxworksbike website and you can see them from 1976 onwards. It's only the inconsistency and grey area's of the rules which prevent these bikes from being legal and it's the same inconsistency and grey area's which allow others in as legal. It shouldn't be this hard and can only do harm to the sport. Air cooled, drum brake, no linkage. Should be that simple.
K
18.6.0.2
18.6.0.3
Do I understand these two rules correctly?
-
At the end of the day we are all way past our prime and that World Motocross Title has eluded us. It makes f#*k all difference what bike we ride in the Evo class, even a works bike isn't going to turn a mid pack rider into a winner. Most of us just want to ride our favourite bike from the era. It wouldn't worry me if someone turned up with a CR480 motor in a '79 cr250 frame as long as it was Air Cooled, Drum Braked and Non Linkage Suspension and built from parts from a vintage bike. The rule book nazi's need to get a life and realise that the guy with the trick looking big bore works replica is still going to get pretty much the same results as he would've on a stock 490 Maico but he's going to have something that he could only have dreamt about in '79 and there's another cool looking bike out on the track ... Bit like a Cheney framed TM400!
-
I have raced against a full grid of modern bikes on a 79 440 magnum and have been mid pack on occasions. ;)
There is nothing better than lining up among 39 other hungry race goer's.. Regardless of what bikes they are on, its bloody great "FUN" regardless.
Please Bring your twin shock, no linkage, air cooled CR 450/480 too the evo grid! as they way it is now, there is still spare gates for someone looking to enjoy there passion and have fun in the dirt with their mates..
More bikes.. more entries.. more money for the clubs, more fun and best of all.. GROWTH!
-
A replica of that Kawasaki exists huskyevo and is the one I was talking about, it's hell fast and the guy who rides is more than capable. I'm with you Maico31, and that's my whole poit of veiw. Build the bike you desire sensibly but without blatant disregard for the rules or the "spirit", bring it for everyone to see, ride it and have some fun.
K
-
Bigk i was super impressed with your RC450 replica and i'd love to see it at a race meeting ripping it up. It may not turn you into Brad Lackey but it sure as hell looks cool!
-
Me again, if you used a KX420 engine in the SR replica, you end up in the same boat as the Honda guys with a non legal bike as the KX420 is a single shock. The Kawasaki boys have another option which keeps the bike legal, but the Honda guys don't have a similar option.
K
-
Thanks maico31, it'll never hit the track but if any forum member gets to Bendigo and would like to see it and some other cool VMX bikes, be sure to look me up.
K
-
Hey bigk back in '79 Peter Ploen the Kiwi lived here and rode for Kawasaki. He fitted a '76 KX400 motor to a '79 KX250a5 frame to race in the open class and fabricated a reed block and welded it to the piston port cylinder. That bike was competitive in the open class and could be duplicated legally for the Evo class today.
-
In the end its not the mechanical advantage that these bikes might have over legitimate bikes that concerns me. A good rider can win on anything. I love modified bikes and in fact every bike I own except my DT1 resto is modified in some way. The difference is that my bikes are modified to fit within a given era . They are bikes that were built to race or are replicas of bikes raced during their particular era. If I was young and fit enough I'd love to build a '78 490 Frankenbike which I think is legal. What worries me is the old chestnut of when is enough, enough.
Here we have a situation where folks are wanting to change the rules "just that little bit" to fit their particular bike into the class. My concern is that with each of those little changes being let through to the keeper, the original concept of the EVO class changes just that little bit more until in the end you have something that barely resembles the original concept. I suspect that is what has happened in Holland. I'd say their rules have been fudged "just that little bit" every year since the class was introduced until we now have the situation where the class bares no resemblence to the original concept. The line has to be drawn somewhere, do we do it after we allow the CR450 in because we feel sorry for the Honda blokes who haven't got a big bore to race or do we do it before hand to prevent other rule fudges? Who decides when enough is indeed enough?
A few posts back my chum Magoo made the statement that if they can make HL replicas, why not RC replicas. The misconception with HLs is that they were some exotic works bike as was the RC450 Honda. The difference is huge. The HL was always available to the public, albeit in small quantities but they were available as complete bikes through Yamaha UK or in kit form from Pro Fab in the USA. RC Hondas however were exotic one or two offs built for the works riders only. It's not a legitimate comparison.
-
This discussion breaks out in various forms from time to time. There seems to be 'at cross purposes' with one group with an emphasis on 'period originalality', another group with an emphasis on 'fair competition', another group with an emphasis on ‘interesting and challenging engineering' and another group with an emphasis on ‘brand loyalty and an interesting representation’.
Why not a ‘air cooled, drum brake, no linkage, period frame’ racing with only current rules legal bikes eligible for prize money, points and trophies?
Would that be a win, win, win outcome? 8)
-
BigK,
Putting a CR450 engine in a twin shock is against the rules, no contest. If such a bike was to turn up to an event that runs under the GCR's any where in Australia it would be in trouble. That is not my opinion, nor a judjement of the Nazi's that you refer to is is a simple fact, the GCR's tell us that. Are the GCR's correct and in-line with the people who ride in todays events?, probably not and this is what i have been trying to get across for the last 12 months.
I have been belting my head against the wall for ages and my frustration (like yours) gets to a point where any stupid comment seems plausable, but i still ask, Where do you draw the line?
And in General
The KX440 that has been refered to is absolutely 100% EVO legal and has never been questioned in relation to EVO - EVER!
However, when the bike was built, the class that it was racing in was not EVO, it was Pre80 and in that class the bike attracted a lot of attention from many other riders and officials. Was the bike legal for Pre80 racing, thats a tough call and was debated by many, untill EVO GCR's were adopted.
Just because a competitor is running mid pack, dont just assume, that it is as someone quoted, "a victimless crime" I have seen 1st hand a mid pack runner place in the top 3 come end of season, through nothing else other than consistancy and determination. To be eliminated by a rider on a bike that does not meet the GCR's is pretty tough pill to swallow. A lot of riders bust there arse (and budget) to be midpack.
Let me get one thing strait, i have tryed to mediate a set of EVO & Pre85 GCR's, and with the exception of one or two people, most have seen fit to tear me a new one for what i have proposed rather than be constructive and help get it right for 99% of the population.
For all the piss and wind that some people come up with, there was only one (1) proposal put forward to MA Classic commission for the 09 GCR's. If you can find the time to get on the PC and spend countless hours on a forum, i'm sure that you could send an e-mail to MA with your views and idea's.
As it stands we now we have to wait for the 2010 GCR's before any changes can be made, a full one and a half seasons away.
Bahnsy
-
And my humble opinion, having a class simply caused EVO is where it all falls down. Sometime back i suggested,
(http://www.wideopenflatout.com/Evolution/DATE%20CLASS.jpg)
From what i am hearing the main change needed would be changing the Pre81 to Pre82.
As best i can work out, Australia seems to be the only country that uses EVO as a class rather than refering it to as a period and then having sub classes fall under it. Under the above matrix, Frankenstiened bikes, Works replicas, etc, like the RC450 of BigK's, would be o/k.
-
I actually really agree with that. I've long held the view that we should have Eras, and that way Vintage is always a true Vintage. I like the idea too of dividing Pre 81/82 from post 81/82, yet still have it fall under Evo as an era. Personally, I'd rather see Pre 78 in Classic, and include Pre 90 in Evo. This keeps all bikes likely to be raced for the next decade in a true 'old bikes' structure. Post 90 is modern and will be for a while yet, but Pre 90 is not. The UK I note see Evo as up to Pre 90. And Pre 78 bikes are a far cry from say a Pre 82 or Pre 85, they are far more truly a classic.
With this in mind, it would be easier to structure eligibility rules as we get away from this grey Evo/Pre85 area. I really like it.
-
anyone seen the latest classic dirt bike mag with the 84 rm500 engine in the 80 rm400 frame?
and the evo bike special featuring an 88 yz250 and an 89 cr500
;D ;D ;D
-
Yep i liked the RM conversion , but the CR / YZ are still to close to modern for my taste.
-
Bahnsy the evo class rules were adopted here from the USA back in '97 for the Thumper Nats. The rules are simple and the class has run trouble free for a long time. All this talk about building works replicas is just that..TALK. It doesn't mean the class needs to be changed. The only people having trouble getting their head around the simple rules seem to be Victorians who have had a pre '80 class until recently. A pre '81 or pre '82 class will only introduce another single shock class with bikes almost identical to the Pre '85 class. What's the point of that? Where will all the '79 CR250's, '79 KX250's, '79 & '80 RM400's end up?
-
It's fun to build an RC replica, just a shame the fun can't be had by be riding it as an evo bike, even though it meets all the basic requirements of air cooled, non linkage, no disc brakes. I know it's against the rules to use an engine from a single shock bike, but the rules as they are would let someone use a YZ465, or Husky 500 engine in their Honda and be legal. This is the absurd part and the part that probably needs to be addressed. Turning a single shock bike into a twin shock is the wrong way for sure and should never be allowed, but if I can use an air cooled engine from as late as 1984 (Husky 500) I should be able to use an engine from 1981 or 1982, after all it is still an old air cooled engine. When you can go and buy a NEW replica frame, swing arm & higly adjustable shocks which have been developed & tweaked here & there over the years to improve them and use them legally, but not be able to use a basic old air cooled engine design because it came out in a production single shock bike, IMO is just ridiculous.
The big bore evo class grids will only continue to get smaller, or just be full of RM400's & YZ465's. There just aren't many Husky CR's, Maico 490's or KTM495's out there, and who really wants to see that? Bahnsy's era class proposal is probably worth investigation and development, but what do we do in the mean time? If someone decided to turn up with an RC & ride it for everyone to see, I think 99.9% of people would be wrapt to see some color and diversity at the races. Looks like RC replica owners will just have to bench race for a bit longer, or bastardise their bikes to make them confirm.
K
-
Bigk,
No one say's you can't race it, and if race results aren't that important, then just punt it around in the pre'85 class............a fairly logical solution. You get to ride the bike and no scrutinazi gets their feathers ruffled.
-
Bigk,
No one say's you can't race it, and if race results aren't that important, then just punt it around in the pre'85 class............a fairly logical solution. You get to ride the bike and no scrutinazi gets their feathers ruffled.
Yep on the money.
-
So I have to race my air cooled, drum brake, twin shock bike against watercooled, disc brake, single shock rising rate linkage bikes. Is that fair & reasonable? This is a really bad tennis match and I'm not playing anymore.
K
-
I'm so glad I'm more interested in the pre 75 class. The legalities were sorted out years ago and there's hardly been a problem since. The Evo class was also sailing along fine until this so called "rule shakeup". The problems within the Evo movement, as minimal asthey were, were more about getting more riders involved rather than changing the eligibility criteria. Rather than trying to build bikes that suit your idea of what Evo should be, why not just enjoy the class as it is. If you really feel the need to race one of these so called "replicas" then either race it in pre '85 or save it for Classic Dirt.
-
Husky riders did, right up until 1985.
Have you actually tried to compete and been told to put it away or just assuming no one will let you ride it?
-
No I haven't tried and don't want to, I'm happy racing Husqvarna. I just feel for the Honda rider who wants a big bore evo bike and beleive they should be eligible given that they are air cooled, drum brake, twin shock. I really believe it should be that simple. Now there are people saying how their evo bikes are competitve in the pre'85 class, so what's the difference? I reckon it's BS and always will. Bit like having to put travel restrictors in your '74 Maico or '77 Montesa to make them eligible in pre'75 & pre '78, BULLSHIT!
K
-
Taa Daa
http://www.huskyclub.com/CandJohlins021w.jpg
and all above board.
-
This topic was never about the rules or trying to change them, but about a bike that was raced in 1979 and if someone made a replica of that bike to the best of their ability/knowledge/materials and finances, wouldnt it be a cool bike.
Whether the rules are right or wrong, whether the rules need changing or remain the same, is immaterial to how YOU as a ride would feel lining up against a bike such as a RC500 replica.
Ask yourself this;
Would YOU be unhappy enough to turn around and ride away, complain strongly to the administration, or welcome the bike for what it is?
And what is a RC450 replica? It's someone's pride and joy, it's many hours of labour, it's someone's love of old motocross bikes, It's trying to re-create an "era" were "Werks bikes" that most of us never got to see in real life dominanted the world of Motocross. It is, in my opinion, a bike of historic value, albeit a replica, but never the less a bike that did campaign all those years ago.
Forget the rules just for a minute, because the rules of today are only their for controlling a 'certain' aspect of VMX, not all of VMX.
To call an RC450 Replica a frankenbike or a butcherised bastard is "totally against the grain" of what VMX stands for. Do we not appreciate craftmanship, ideas, and the 'want', of creating such a bike.
I have read though most of this (OzVMX)forum and "rules" aside, the general feeling is the liking of Vintage Motocross bikes and the era of which they came from, that whole "back in the day" concept is the joy of it all.
Put your hand up if you believe that a concept bike is breaking the rules, and if you do have your hand up, which rules are being broken? The rules of the era? The rules of the bike? The rules we have imposed? Or the morale rules of VMX?
I was on the understanding that VMX was to re-create an era in time, to preserve the history of Motocross, and to enjoy a brotherhood of like minded people restoring, showing, racing and remembering, probably one of the greatest periods of motocross.
This so-called blaspheme of a bike is one of the pinnacles of what we stand for;. - and whether any replica "werks" bike is made, shown or raced, we should be welcoming it not chastising it because of a rule that has been made up 30 years after the fact.
I ask you again;
Would YOU be unhappy enough to turn around and ride away, complain strongly to the administration, or welcome the bike for what it is?
-
Taa Daa
http://www.huskyclub.com/CandJohlins021w.jpg
and all above board.
Fell out the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down :D However in the south island of New Zealand it would be considered a thing of beauty and worth giving up a mans Ewe for ;D
-
I just feel for the Honda rider who wants a big bore evo bike ...
Ewww... So what did the Honda rider who wanted a big bore in 1979 do?
Why should the VMX rules be altered for him in 2008?
-
Blahblahblah bla,blah blah blahbla Blahblahblah bla,blah blah blahbla Blahblahblah bla,blah blah blahblaBlahblahblah bla,blah blah blahblacomeoutandblowyourdoorsofonmycr125anywayBlahblahblah bla,blah blah blahblaBlahblahblah bla,blah blah blahbla
-
Since I don't actually ride in VMX events, I normally stay out of these types of threads/discussions, however I have chosen to butt in on this one to express my disapointment at the use of "Scrutinazi"!
As you might guess, I am a licenced scrutineer (along with Clerk of Course, Race Secretary etc and licenced Coach).
Please remember that every official at an amature (club) event and most State and Aust title events are unpaid volunteers. We do these jobs because we love the sport and if no one esle does the job the sport will DIE!
We don't make the rules, we just have to make sure that those who wish to ride in the event follow the rules and guide lines set down for the type event/class in question. Remember it is YOUR RESPONCIBLITY to unsure that the bike YOU present to the scrutineer is legal for the class you are entering and complies with the required safety standards!
I am quite sure that most VMX riders would not want the sport to go down the road that Historic Road Racing has gone, where Log Books are required for bike, which require all the major components of the bike to be catalogued, and proof of "use in period" required for any major component that is not original manufacture equipment.
I have deleted the rest of my comments for fear that some might think I am just another "Loser Official" having a rant.
However before you say "yeh, those who can ride, race, those who can't become officials", I have previously won two state championships in my chosen fields and I am currently leading my class in the championship series I am competing in this year.
CJ
-
Love your post E74 and it's very constuctive might I add. I think I read that in the the current GCR's. ColJ, you as a scrutineer are put under way too much pressure because of the ambigous, no COMMON SENSE rules. EVO should be simple as the basics of air cooled, no disc brakes, non linkage suspension + "from the era". Here's another example of how to bulid an RC: I am not allowed to use a cylinder or engine from '81 or '82 on my Honda, but can use a NEW replica HL frame with modern improvements for my HL. Therefore along those lines I could go an get a new lump of alloy, spend a few hours with a milling machine, send it off and have it nikasil coated, stroke the crankshaft, bolt it on to my 1979 bottom end and everyone will be happy, even though the end result would be the same as using a thirty year old engine or cylinder. If anyone can convince me that this is common sense and helpful to the sport, I will bow down gracefully. The bikes meet the basic rules of evo and should be allowed, simple as that.
K
-
Col,
Your points are 100% valid... However, I'm sure you're aware of the existence of the peanuts who take the whole thing waaaay too seriously.... and then hide behind "but I'm a volunteer!" when its pointed out to them that they're harming the sport.
In my part of the world, we have great VMX scrutineers who understand that getting bikes out onto the track is the most important thing (within reason, of course....), and that if there is a eligibility issue that they've missed, the other competitors will sort it out.
However, I've come across these scrutinazis in my non-VMX motorsport, and they are incredibly destructive to the sport.
-
Timeline 2010. Looking into the future, here's a possible forum exchange:
HONDABOY:I want to build an RC450 replica to race in the Evo class but can't for the life of me find a '78-80 twinshock Honda frame. Why can't I modify my single shock frame to twinshock? It's not going to hurt the class and will only improve the breed by having more open class Hondas.
REPLIES:
Hondafan: I Agree with Hondaboy, us Honda blokes are really being penalised by not being able to find suitable frames. I'ts alright for the blokes who got in early back in '08 and for the 250 blokes but what an I going to do with my CR450? It's not competitive in the pre 85 class so I'm stuck with a lemon. By welding twin shock mounts to my frame it'll look just like Noycies bike, I promise.
Maicomac: I'm with Hondaboy and Hondafan. I want to race an '81 490 Maico but I can't find one under 20k. Why can't I weld twin shock mounts to my 1983 500 Maico and be alloowed to race in Evo. Once I weld the twin shocks on, it'll be just like an '81, honest!
And so on ans so on. If the above scenario was accepted it wouldn't be long before you have monstrosities like those things they race in Holland. It's human nature to fudge the line and if you think that continuous testing of the limits won't happen, you're a poor judge of human nature. I'm a supposed rule nazi and even I test the limits of the rullebook with my bikes. The one difference is that I never go past the written limits and never reinvent history. All of my bikes are trick but historically correct. The reason the pre 65, pre 75 and now pre '78 rules are so bulletproof is that right from day one the racers realised that the rules were there to keep everyone honest and to prevent people reinventing the vintage bike. Sure some people disagree with having to limit the back suspension on certain Maicos, Montesas, KTMs and CCMs but they put up with it because they agree with the reasoning behind the rule.
The reasons behind keeping the Evo class within the limit of using only bikes that are pre linkage is to prevent the eventual fudging of history by inventing bikes that didn't exist like in the above scenario and in the building of replicas of bikes that are merely one mans idea of what a works bike is. Now, if somebody borrowed a genuine works RC off Terry Good or someone and faithfully reproduced the frame, suspension and engine to those genuine works specs, well that'd be not only acceptable but highly commended. To take a production 1979 Honda CR250 frame and fit a 1981 CR 450 engine to it and call it an RC replica is a big ask. My dictionary defines replica as:1. A copy or reproduction of a work of art, especially one made by the original artist. 2. A copy or reproduction, especially one on a scale smaller than the original.Building a 450 powered '79 model it is no way a replica of what Graeme Noyce rode but is merely a hot rod put together to look kinda' like that bike. I'd bet if you put the two next to each other the comparison would be as viable as fitting an RM370 engine to a TM400 and calling it an RH replica.
I can understand the frustration of Honda owners that the company didn't build a twinshock 500 and therefore they are missing out on racing in the 500 class but sometimes history doesn't deal us the hand we want. Changing that history is impossible so if the 500 class is important and you aren't into 4 strokes either build a Mugen or move to another brand of bike.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
With the on going problems with cost fuel bikes repairs and parts to get to race VMX bike we should not be trying to discorage new people to build bikes and come along yes we have to have rules but remember the more rules the harded the rules the less riders we will get this is about the bikes and racing VMX the more we complicate the evo rules the less bikes will be on the line do you think buy putting a 500cc air cooled engine in a evo frame will make you a winner get real you have to be able to ride the thing fast in the first place a good 250cc rider will most times beat you any way lets get more bikes out there and not become a piss ant little club event no one wants to be at or even take the time to run because there are no bikes that turn up to race drum brakes twin shocks and air cooled how easy we all have internet access if you want find the parts that suit the class so you can build you dream evo bike do so and go racing
-
Maybe it's just me being argumentative, the other night I took my wife out for dinner and when it came to the desert menu I got a little confused and had to ask the waitress to clarify whether the sticky date pudding did indeed have sticky dates in it or was it a date pudding that was sticky? I'm sure it doesn't have sticky dates, and I'm sure a 450 0r 480 powered RZ/RA chassis should be evo legal.
K
-
The way I see it, the issue here is really one of changing rules to suit one or two people, and it is one where you will never make everyone happy. As in the modified version of Abraham Lincoln's "You can fool all of the people ... ", quote, i.e, "You can please all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot please all the people all the time."
The "powers that be" and make the rules are not going to change the rules just to suit one or two people, based on the philosophy embodied in the above quote. They can rightly see that once they change the rules for one person they will have every man and his dog asking for changes of the rules to suit their own particular case, and you end up killing the sport by having a rule book that is the size of an encylopedia. Eligibility scrutineering would be a nightmare and log books would be required as per Historic Road Racing, with photos of the bike as it was originally approved and a detailed list of components that have been approved, otherwise you would have to front your bike for scrutineering the day before the event, so the poor scrutineer could check every aspect of compliance with the class/era entered.
So basically you need to build your bike to suit the era and therfore rules that are in existance, and not try to build bikes that did not exist within the era that you want to race.
CJ
PS.
Fortunatlly, I have not had to work as an elegibilty scrutineer, only normal "safety" scrutineering, and I will admit that at times, I have passed bikes with minor "problem", after getting the rider to aknowledge that their bike did not comply, and getting a firm commitment that they would rectify the problem before fronting up for the next event.
-
Therefore along those lines I could go an get a new lump of alloy, spend a few hours with a milling machine, send it off and have it nikasil coated, stroke the crankshaft, bolt it on to my 1979 bottom end and everyone will be happy, even though the end result would be the same as using a thirty year old engine or cylinder.
If anyone can convince me that this is common sense and helpful to the sport, I will bow down gracefully.
I'm not sure I'll be able to convince you, but:
The point is that your ultra expensive, one-off, hand-built 2008 barrel is far more in line with the ultra expensive, one-off, hand-built 1979 RC barrel.
Back in 1979, very, very few people would have been able to get their hands on a 500cc Honda barrel - just because Honda later made something similar, doesn't mean it is a remotely 'historic' part.
And the talk of "just getting more bums on bike seats" is a mischievous diversion at least.... None of what's been suggested is illegal for pre-85 racing - so if people want to go and build an uber-bike, then they can - and they will be more than welcome to go and race with the pre-85s.
But if its really only about getting people on the Evo-open grid, then they can do that for much less time and money by either riding their 250 or by (god forbid!) riding a different brand of bike...
-
This has to stop Nathan. We've agreed on far too many things lately. I'm not amused! ???
-
Scutineer data sheet, evlotion class: No disc brakes, no watercooling, no linkage suspension. Three ticks, how hard is that?
K
-
Surely you can see that something that simple will be abused?
Oh look, it's nearly 3 o'clock, I'm off to the pub.
-
OK, so where would Brad's (090) ME360 he has on ebay sit with class regulations, given that it has an '81 front end and a modified '81 swingarm. Item # 290248298081. I say evo legal but by the letter of the rule book, it isn't and would have go in the pre'85 class, which is wrong IMO. I can't really see how the basic simple criteria can be abused either.
K
-
Here's some galvanising topics: Guns, abortion, cats, religion, politics, should we be in Iraq... and now VMX 'IN THE SPIRIT'.
Rules are quoted, opinions are firm, minds are made up, heels are dug in and no-one is prepared to give any ground.
Maybe 'in the spirit' needs definition?
Dunno, I'm trying to be objective but I'm leaning/tilting/tipping onto bigk's side of the fence (and before ya say it I know it's not about 'sides or teams'!!!)
It's discussion and it's debate and it's quite interesting.
Having disclosed my leanings I've lost some grip on the objectivity of the discussion (not really, but that will be the perception).
I think 'in the spirit' is what the 'big bore Honda' idea is about.
Not the dictionary definition of 'replica', not putting the magnifying glass on the rules and saying "I told you so - it's not in the rules so stop pushing it".
and not because the bike didn't exist back in the day. We know that...the idea is meant 'in the spirit', not 'in the rule book'.
I think we all have a different idea of what 'in the spirit' means.
Let's face it, we're all polarised in our views... and I fully respect and understand both sides of the debate.
Your turn...
-
I just looked at the Evo rules again and it says: No linkage suspension, No disc brakes and Air cooled motors. But it also says: Modifications converting later model equipment to comply will not be allowed. That basically says to me that you can't use an engine from a later model of the same brand.
-
The most ridiculous comment made so far came from my old mate Natehan "riding a different brand of bike". Now you're being silly young fella, there is no other brand.
By the way this is a good, interesting debate. The boys are getting passionate without slagging each other off, the way it should be.
-
dont know - I may have missed some of the point here as I have just gone through the 7 pages of this thread but for the majority of us (I believe anyway) I bought a 78 CR250 and raced the 250 class - there was no big bore. If I had a CR450 I would race in that era class etc - not try and back date it for want of better words. What I mean is how many people does this effect - if we are not racing for sheep stations then why not race the 450 in its relevant era rather than try and fit it into an earlier era???? I looked at Brads ME360 and thought I wouldn't mind a bid or two - but then worried about the later front end and back swingarm and thought well just ride it in the later class??????? Is that a problem? We seem to argue about where a bike fits as if we were racing for titles?
Not well explained but heopefully the point is there.
cheers
Rossco
-
And my humble opinion, having a class simply caused EVO is where it all falls down. Sometime back i suggested,
(http://www.wideopenflatout.com/Evolution/DATE%20CLASS.jpg)
From what i am hearing the main change needed would be changing the Pre81 to Pre82.
As best i can work out, Australia seems to be the only country that uses EVO as a class rather than refering it to as a period and then having sub classes fall under it. Under the above matrix, Frankenstiened bikes, Works replicas, etc, like the RC450 of BigK's, would be o/k.
Its taken me a while to process it all, and I don't agree 100% with everything Bahnsy said in that post, but I reckon he's pretty well hit the nail on the head.
Evo (as a class) is the only VMX category that has no minimum age limits. This is where the confusion comes from.
If you look at a pre-75 bike (for example), it is generally easy to work out whether it is legal or not, even if it is highly modified.
Each component of the bike will fit into one of three basic categories of eligibility, according to the rules:
1. Free (eg: handle bars, levers, paint work),
2. Generally free, but with some restrictions (eg: exhaust pipes, shock absorbers, ignitions).
3. Limited to period parts (eg: engine cases, forks).
Yes, the rules are a bit vague, and the 'flow-on' models and replica parts both muddy the waters, but I'm sure everyone will agree that that's the basic framework for all of the bike-age-specific categories.
But, our Evo rules don't define any sort of period, just a broad specification, along with an unstated assumption that the bikes will be 1978 to 1982-ish models. But while that is not spelled out explicitly, then it cannot be enforced, and only the first two categories can be enforced.
At which point, we're inviting Dutch style bikes....
The Evo rules need some sort of clear line in the sand.
The bit about "Bikes must be OEM" tries to be the line in the sand, but it fails because if it is actually impossibly restrictive ("Don't have OEM tyres? You'd better load 'er back onto the trailer son, 'cause your bike don't comply. And that aftermarket gearlever aint welcome 'round here neither!").
And apart from that, it is easily circumvented by entering the bike as a Homebuilt 2008 model - remember, Evo doesn't specify a minimum bike age.
There are numerous ways to draw that line in the sand. Personally, I like
"A bike will be eligible for the Evo class if it meets all of the following criteria:
1. Be made before 1985 (or be carry-over models),
2. Be air cooled.
3. Have drum brakes only.
4. Have non-linkage suspension.
All major components must be from Evo bikes, or have been available before 1981"
I understand that that's more restrictive than most people would like, and I sure don't feel like defending it to the death or anything - but it is a clear, workable rule that eliminates all of the current confusion. It could easily be tweaked in whatever direction you wanted (allowing drum-brake forks from a non-Evo bike, for example).
-
Nathan, how many years/periods do you want in the rules? 1981? 1985? Remember that this is ‘vintage’ motocross so the bike’s need to be old bikes, not new old models. Even though the newer bikes with twin shocks, air cooled and drum brakes wouldn’t pose much of a threat, they are still not vintage.
Below is an example of rules;
In the case of the so called RC450 Replica bike or even an SR420 Replica bike, could be raced if it was just a motor change into their corresponding chassis (1979/80 CR250 and KX250A5), as those motors fall within the evo period (pre82).
18.7.12 Pre 82 Evolution Class
18.7.12.1 Only bikes with non linkage suspension, drum brakes and air cooled
motors to be eligible.
18.7.12.2 Modifying post and period parts to comply will not be allowed.
18.7.12.3 After-market parts to be period specific.
18.7.12.4 Flow on?? (If you want to have flow on bikes)
18.7.13 Evolution Classes- Classes
a) Solo 125cc,
b) Solo 250cc,
c) Solo 263cc and over.
18.7.13.1 Age groups are;
a) Under 40 years of age.
b) 40 years of age or over.
Ok, yes I know some people will be displeased with the "Pre 82" period, but as I see it, not having a period/year cut off is where allot of the problems seem to come from. The manufacturers of the bikes in question were happy to run their bikes against the linkaged/watercooled bikes of the day so why is it different now?
Amendments for certain bikes could be catered for if the need arise. (e.g. YZ125H, Husky’s etc.)
-
I think it's important that we preserve the Evo class for twin shock and non linkage bikes.. they are the end of an era and in my opinion still look like vintage bikes with 2 shocks (except yamaha), drum brakes and air cooling. There is no need for year cutoffs, otherwise what does the guy do who has an '82, '83 or '84 Husky with 2 shocks, air cooling and drum brakes. If we start letting in the hybrid works replica's it will become a shit-fight and people will start turnng up with anything and everything trying to pass it off as an Evo bike. What is 'flow on' in the Evo class??
-
I think DJ means 82 as a cut off only of twin shock (evo) bikes. He is saying that linkage bikes are still not allowed. Follow ons would include the Huskies and the like. 1982 is the latest that an evo bike can be, bar a few 'follow on ' models.
-
Thanks Brad ;D
As Brad(090) says their are some Twin shocked, Air cooled and drum braked bikes after the pre82 date, but not allot, so add them in as "flow on bikes" (name the models) and you would now have a class that is period specific that would allow only 3 big bore motors from 1981 to be changed into an older chassis. The RM465, the CR450 and the KX420. In the 250 class I'm not sure but I think it is just the RM and KX that were still aircooled bikes that had linkage suspension, but then the "CC" rating is still the same.
You wouldn't be able to modify the 1981 linkage bikes back to twin shock (like they do in europe) because of the rule 18.7.12.2 so that keeps it just to Twin shock and yamaha mono shock chassis and air cooled motors and drum brakes.
As for forks, when did Honda make 42mm forks? If they were fitted to 1981 Honda's then they would be totally acceptable as would any part from 1981, providing it wasnt disc brakes, water cooling or linkage suspension.
-
Before people start jumping up and down about changing motors of the big bore class, as I have said it is only 3 bikes, the RM465, and why anyone would want to change their RM400T (being the last RM to have twin shocks) to a 465 I wouldnt know. 65cc isnt going to help them if they cant do it with 400cc. Not to mention that it would probably devalue their RM400N/T by putting a 465 motor in it as it wouldnt be an orginal bike any more.
As for the other 2 bikes (KX420 and CR450), well at the present time no such bikes can race in the evo class, but here is a chance to have more bikes on the line that normally wouldnt be there. And the lover's of these two brands I bet would gladly want to take on the YZ465's, Maico 490's and any other brands.
-
It doesn't really bother me to let those engines be used but an RM500 engine looks like a 465, a CR480 engine painted red looks like a 450 and so on. I think it will make the scrutineers job harder and open up a can of worms and the rules will be more complicated and have to be worded very carefully. It's sounds confusing where you can't use a '81 RM465, CR450 or KX420 bike but you can use the engine. People will wanna know if you can use an '81 single shock engine why can't you use an '82 3 or 4, it's still aircooled? Jeez i'd hate to be a scrutineer!
-
It seems like all this talk about changing the Evo rules is just to let 2 or 3 guys ride their works replicas in the class. Is it really worth it?? Why not just let those guys turn up with their bikes, have them scrutineered and let them ride at Club days but are not eligible to score points or receive trophies.
-
Thank you Maico31 :) please all read his (hers?) then reread above post and understand how simple and complete it is. ;)
-
Remember John, this is all just thoughts...I was just bored at work. It wasnt about changing the rules but as the thread has moved on so do the thoughts. I am certainly not looking to change anything or anyone but just to give an opinion on a subject that was up for debate. Because I have posted up an alternative set of rules doesnt mean I want to change the way the original evo class is, but more to give people something to think about when they are bored at work.
As I say, I am not trying to change the rules of the evo class, because the alternative rules that I posted actually would mean everything stays the same except a couple more bikes would be able to race.
A YZ465 engine looks the same as a YZ490
If you have pre82 then it is simple isnt it?
I think the scrutineers would find it quite simple, if they can deal with the pre78, pre75 and so on rules, a pre82 class surely wouldnt be hard to scrutinize.
The 1981 linkage bikes with air cooled motors would run in the pre85 class as normal but if you happen to have a 1981 air cooled motor sitting around doing nothing and a non linkage, drum braked roller sitting next to it then you have the makings of a twin shocked evo bike that wouldnt normally be eligible.
One more bike on the line, and isnt that a good thing??
-
It seems like all this talk about changing the Evo rules is just to let 2 or 3 guys ride their works replicas in the class. Is it really worth it?? Why not just let those guys turn up with their bikes, have them scrutineered and let them ride at Club days but are not eligible to score points or receive trophies.
As a competitor, how would you feel if you were at the pointy end of the field and was taken out in a race by a non competive rider and you broke an arm. If a rider can't race for points or trophies then they are not racing, there simply circulating in a competive environment as a non competive entrant.
You cant be 1/2 pregnant.
-
Yeah DJ more bikes on the line is good. I get what you're saying about pre '82, they still have to be non linkage bikes.
-
Bahnsy if it absolutely has to be in Black and White then No they shouldn't be allowed to race in the Evo class, but not everyone races for a trophy, some are quite happy to circulate mid pack and just enjoy riding their bikes. And no i wouldn't be happy if i got taken out by a non competitive rider and broke my arm, and i wouldn't be happy if i got taken out by a competitive rider and broke my arm either. But that's racing and shit can happen.
-
Disclaimer :I dont know your rule book and i certinally dont want to change it, these are just my personal opinions :)
Pre 81 is pre 81
Pre 78 is pre 78
Pre 75 is pre 75
These Eras split bikes into classes that cover the major developments in suspension. There will always be bikes and either end of these eras , and thats the way it was in the day.
If you couldn't buy it in 1980 , 1977 , 0R 1974 then it aint eligible for that class.
Flow on models are Bullshit >:( this aint back to the future ::) you cant ride a bike that didn't exist in the class period you are racing.
I think works replicas are great and a credit to the people who take the time and effort to build them :) Where or do they fit into a class ? fork knows ???
But they do have a place in VMX :)
-
without the flow-on rule bikes such as my TS400 would be landfill by now. I can't see a problem with this rule when it states clearly the bike must remain virtually unchanged from the preceeding models. The bikes did in a sense already exist, the calander might have changed, the engine and frame numbers might have changed but the technology and ashetics of the era didn't. I'm biased I guess but if you outlaw the later flow on model then you must outlaw the parts from these models also :-\ how could you determin which parts were from what? :P I think works replica's are great too, otherwise I wouldn't own so many 'zuki's..it says so right here in the advertisment that they are 'the' closest thing you'll get to a 'works replica' an' I believed them!! Roger and Joel don't lie!! ;D
-
As E74 put it ealier... blah, blah, blah,blah & so on. This really is all too hard and I still believe if it's air cooled, no linkage and drum brake it should be eligible and no scutineer in the world would have any stress. My point is that the rules are grey & fuzzy when you can buy brand new "replica" frames (HL), & shocks etc which have been MUCH improved since the '70's/'80, but can't use a 25 year old air cooled engine design because of one sentence in the rulebook. Which is going to give the most advantage to the average rider, a dirty old big bore 2 stroke engine which most of us can't handle anyway, or a set of adjustable shocks and new improved chassis dynamics? Shocks are classed as consumables, fair enough but frames aren't. I don't believe it's about "cheating" as the cheats will do it no matter what and we probably won't know anyway, but the guy with the big bore evo bike would get called a "cheater" by the rulebook fanatics, which is totally unfair. The rules are strange and ambiguous at best, and the bit about riding them in pre '85 is not right as it is a different "era". DJ you unknowingly opened a big can of worms with the original post and yes it would be a cool bike to build, ride and see at the races, but alas it seems it won't be.
Cheers,K
-
It would indeed be a cool thing to see in the Evo class if it was a genuine replica. Fitting an '81 450 engine to a '79 250 frame does not make it a replica of, or anything like the genuine article! GMC has delved into some of the differences between the two earlier in the thread and he's only touched on them. The 450/RZ Is merely a cool hybrid built out of components from two different class divisions, no matter how much spin is put on it. The bike should race in the class from which the newest major component comes from which, in this case is the engine, which started life in a 1981 Pro Link Honda CR.....a pre '85 class bike.
I'm still finding the comparison with the HL Yamaha confusing. The HL was a production bike that was available to the public. The Honda RC never was. The HL was if you like, a seventies interpitation of the Rickman Metisse concept. Todays GMC replicas are perfectly fine in my view if the correct components for the chosen class are used. HL's are eligible for pre '78 but the bike must feature pre '78 suspension components to qualify. If the owner uses 43mm forks from a later YZ, it must race in the Evo division.
This discussion is going around in circles. The Evo class was (and still is) sailing along just fine until people with personal agendas started looking for loopholes so they could squeeze in bikes that they built knowing quite well that they weren't eligible for Evo. All of these graphs and proposed revamps don't matter two fifths of fork all to a class that has such easy to follow and control rules already. Stop all of this "what if I" bullshit and just race what you've got in the class that the bike fits into......
-
Amen.
-
Twomen
-
2nd that... passed!
-
I think Firko has articulated what many of us have been thinking about these so called replicas. They aren't replicas of anything but the images in their constructors heads. I too was scratching my head over the HL references ???.
Let's move on now lads. I think this has been flogged to death.
-
yeah, but what if I..... :D
...if you want it build it
...if you want to ride it ride it
...if you want to argue eligability turn up and see what happens
...if you think you're hard done simply don't play
easy ;) I love hybrids. I had my RM400C donk in an '84 KDX250 chassis for well over 10 years and it handled and did everything so much better. It was raced a couple of times dirt track against moderns and it actually went very well. 3rd overall on the day beaten by a couple of superfast young guys on a late 90's CR500 and even later model CR250. There are other options if you wish to race it ;)
-
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-4/1252864/CR480RA.jpg)
This is the infamous bike that Geoff Holmes built quite a few years back & was subsequently banned . It now resides in North Queensland where the current owner races it in evo class at local club days & we don't have a problem with it . The bike was also raced in the '04 National Evo Championships at Conondale & no-one seemed too concerned ( probably would have been a different story if it finished in the placings though ). I think that it is a cool bike .
-
she's a pretty in depth read this thread!
and my imagination can see some amazing bikes as i love some of the ideas that are being mentioned,
yet most of the talk seems to concern itself with the EVO class.
take a good look at any classic meeting and the number of bikes lined up at the startline in any EVO class is huge! EVO in my opinion is alive and well already.