OzVMX Forum
Marque Remarks => Suzuki => Topic started by: pokey on November 09, 2008, 12:13:19 am
-
a wee bit nice and very desirable.. atleast by me
i think this frame /engine combo is well suited to flat track all it needs is a pair of walters shocks and id be happy to have it in my shed any day
what ya reckon chris, I think yours would do up a treat for flat track
(http://i3.ebayimg.com/08/i/001/19/ef/f4b6_1.JPG)
and only 1200 bucks. pity its in sideneee
Cudos to the builder of this fine example of the yellow marque
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Suzuki-1969-TS250-PRE70-Dirt-tracker_W0QQitemZ190264923700QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item190264923700&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=66%3A2%7C65%3A1%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318#ebayphotohosting
-
Ah, I found that tonight too!
That'd be Nifty's bike. I've never even seen it in the flesh, but I recall Noel saying that it goes really well.
-
I reckon it would be a good ride mate. Doc i remember has one he was musing about throwing it into flat track at nudgee and from the looks of this its not a bad idea at all and might even be competetive.
by the way my work mate Rod cant stop telling my of his appreciation of your and Yumastepside's generosity and good nature
-
It's a bargain in my eyes Pokey!! The bike pictured is/was the one Neville Sheppard built. It is a good thing. The barrel not only on original bore is a genuine TM250J item. It was NOS when fitted, I know cause I sold it to him a few years back ;) It is very similar to my visions for the '69 TS but I'm running a disc brake up front and 18 mudcatchers front and rear. I want to go with the look of the american style dirt track bike with matching Dunlop K180's fitted front and rear 8) Too heavy for MX but dirt track she'll be fine I reckon. Still a tad heavy but the GT disc brake should pull it up sufficiently. I've got the TM gear clusters and TM top end ready to go but still working on fitting the TM250 ignition. Can be done but I have to make an adapter plate for the stator ala RM80B where the stator is mounted to another plate that mounts to the cases. Here's pic of how it looks now but it is far removed from how I'd like it to look when finished excepting the green and gold, that stays ;)
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/Doctor_Suzuki/ts250-a.jpg)
Pokey, my shocks are still cantered further forward..must look into the reasoning behind that but I like it regardless ;) the wheels off this bike will go onto my TM250 project I'm also about to start. Getting sick of all this half finished shit so I'm pulling the digit out..finally ::)
-
Niftys bike is a dead ringer for the ex Eddie Brooks TS250 now owned by Sydney Ray Atkins and ridden by his 17 year old grandaughter Kathleen. Brooksie put a lot of thought into this bike and despite looking fairly stock it's actually pretty damn trick. Because using a TM barrel is ilegal for pre '70, Eddie disguised a TM barrel to look like a pre '70 TS item which required some intricate welding by tig master Chris Ellis. Internally TM items were used exclusively including a TM transmission which I believe took some serious adapting. The barrel was ported by the legendary Gary Treadwell and one of his pipes was also fitted. The bike was deliberately built to look a tad plain to keep the pit Nazis off the scent. I was scrutineering during those days and even though Eddie and Chris were mates, they didn't tell me it's secrets for obvious reasons. It was years before the ruse was uncovered. ;D Nowadays, in the more relaxed enviroment of pre '70, nobody gives a toss about the TM barrel. I personally don't think it's correct but what's the point of making a fuss when a 17 year old girl is having a bucket fun on a vintage bike, something we should encourage not discourage. American Michael McCook rode the bike during his brief Nepean appearance and told me that the bike was actually quite a weapon.
I still believe that the Japanese 250's make potent pre '70 machines if a bit of lateral thinking is thrown at them. The Yamaha DT1/RT1 and TS250 Suzuki have especially good engines that can handle modification with minimal stress. The chassis are a bit heavy and agricultural but as we've discussed here before, many frame tweaks can achieve that dramatically improve geometry and with good shocks to be had for little money and PD valves revolutionising fork development, the bikes can be made to handle better than our sports pioneers ever envisioned. Add lightweight hubs and rims from a Euro bike and alloy, fibreglass or plastic tanks and fenders and the weight can be trimmed dramatically. I'd love to see more punters get into developing these old has beens into serious pre '70 tackle, to take on the Brit and Euro supremacy. I've retired my Maico for the time being and will concentrate on the Cheney RT1 for pre '70 and will have a guest rider on her at the Conondale Nats. I'd like to see more Japanese involvement in that class at the Nats.
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-8/1062154/kathleen.jpg)
As a sidetrack, the rider sitting patiently in the background on his immaculate MX360 is the grand old man of vintage racing, Penrith clubs Bill Pengilly, aged 82. Bill is not only as enthusiastic as any necomer to the sport, having raced at nearly every Nationals since 1991, but is still as fit and strong as a Mallee Bull, racing two classes at most events on his matching pair of MX250/360 Yamahas. The photo is significant in that Kathleen is the youngest racer on the Sydney scene and Bill is undoubtedly the oldest and both are as enthusiastic about the sport as anybody I've met. I'm honoured to have both of them as friends.
-
Firko, why is a TM250 barrel illegal on a pre'70 TS250?? It bolts straight on and there is little difference. I could port a TS barrel to the same specs. I was always under the impression it was quite okay to use the TM250 barrel as TM250's were around pre '70. What's the go there?? Probably won't matter a zac as it'll run in the seniors against some moderns anyway. I'm not building it specifically to vintage regs or a certain era but it will be classic and it will be the way I want to build it ;)
Below is Scott Andersen's bike (US) this is one of, if not the nicest, '69/'70 TS250 I've ever seen 8)
-
That's a cool looking American TS Doc. I like his use of the RH67 paint scheme. Now, the TM Barrel in pre 70. Not being the Suzuki guru you are Doc I may get some of the details wrong and it has been a long time since this came to a head. The legality of certain TS Suzukis was a minor kefuffle in the early days when a couple of blokes showed with TM barrels. The MoMs stated that "engines must remain externally unchanged'' and "all major components must have been manufactured within the period, or be replicas of components manufactured within the period, specified for the class in which the class competes." The fact that the TM 250 J wasn't released until 1971 precludes the use of that barrel for both of the above MoMs rules. I understand that the barrel is capable of being ported to specs similar to those of a TM but seem to remember that there are features of the TM barrel that can't be matched in a TS unit. Other, more knowledgable officials noted them at the time but I've forgotten them. One difference I do remember, as trivial as it is, is that the "247cc" casting is on opposite sides on both barrels. Eddie was so anal in disguising his TM Barrel that he machined the old capacity casting off the TM Barrel, modified where it was with Devcon to look exactly like the TS version and then cut the capacity casting from an old TS Barrel and had Chris Ellis weld it to the TM barrel where it would reside on a TS. Other casting differences were also addressed with the use of a tig welder and mill!
It's all very anal and looking at it with modern eyes it seems a bit of rule Nazi overkill, but you must remember that this was the era when we were trying to get a new sport established and seeing some of the rule bending that was going on in classic road racing at the time the decision was made to strictly enforce the criteria to establish a mindset with racers that we were determined to keep the playing field as level as possible. That attitude by the early "rule nazis" has proved to have been a great move as today, we rarely see many rule breakers or rule book manipulators. The rules are simple and if followed to the letter of the law, easy to abide.
Today, I don't think many officials would worry about a TM barrel on a TS as it's not really that different. However, if the situation ever came to a head at a title event, I feel that scrutineers would have no choice but to disqualify a TM Barreled TS. I still believe in that level playing field we strived for in 1988 so I'd have to agree with that decision. I can't use a reed DT2MX barrel on my DT1 so why should a 1971 TM barrel be allowed on a TS?
-
Thanks Firko, that explains it a little better, now lets get real anal :D an RH68 '69 and '70 barrel? All of those models are classified as TM250 also correct? Now look at the pictures. Are or are they not the same looking motors including barrel as the 1971 TM250J. The 250 is a flow on of the pre'70 models so therefore it shouldn't be an excluded part. Any problem with running that one? Not being a smart arse or argumentative Firko I'm just offering up another perspective of what I see something that may well be legal even for the Nats. You said yourself you'd like to see more participation in this era so here's a good way to help the Japers stick it to the Pommie oil drippers :P no offence anyone, just a saying is all ;) and technically the RH68/69/70 were factory production bikes the public if sufficiently funded could buy.
(http://b1hqaq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pw9J7D4iUYI3xb7fDCIc8NzKCfy_tb-fJiIxqym-uIC3ViM_bCsTyQAN7R8SStZjIGq1QQ6UC0cA/1968%20RH68.jpg)
(http://b1hqaq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p-zQ4CGKEHC8R7vOmuvh4GkN22QP-_zJ6-x-0kFs6qii1eKy7LeGxnrmwEoQeJ2Pqz5xnPCJ6JPU/1969%20RH69.jpg)
(http://b1hqaq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pzL6UEgSazU1tKNe538RIOzTIbkrX9gAPzg2CJ4jqEGLRCnwmLCe8CO_yfI0bdIT8cvSSoTzCVzE/1970%20RH70.jpg)
(http://m4vn6w.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pfVGZcE6zEZIpsJUrMBnozRurjr2fgGjwcpU93F9X9Buh2Ogtg2WmV0MELoNJHWpQG0Hwh4--GQk/1972%20TM250J%20Suzuki%201.jpg)
-
oops..actually the TM250J isn't a good example. Look at the '74 and '75 TM250L and M and you will see a better match. Beats me why Suzuki went backwards with the pushrod clutch but it came back in '74 so all's well that ends well ;)
(http://m4vn6w.bay.livefilestore.com/y1plu4EfkfBAlKV8ceJEyN-uqMOMtn-bLy8zPI9NS4S0R7PvuKlU11uy4zbRWlexHf8DgVqVgHuOww/1975%20TM250M%20Suzuki.jpg)
-
Not being privy to a vast Suzuki knowledge I'd have to agree that it "looks" like you're right. I agree, I'd like to see more Japanese bikes in pre '70 but only if they play by the same rules as the Brits, Euros and other Jap makes. I don't know if the barrels are the same or vastly different but I do know that there must be enough difference for Eddie to go to the trouble he did and for the eligibility stewards of the era to react to the barrel swap situation. I'm actually of two minds on this. I'd love to see more Japanese bikes in pre '70 and take your word that the barrel difference is minimal and wouldn't make much difference overall. However, as the rulebook stands right now, it'd still be ilegal as the TM engine or engine parts aren't listed as flow ons. If it's good for all of the other makes, it's got to be good for Suzuki.
At the end of the day I don't really care either way and I'm really only raising the point to open a debate on a dull news week. ;)
-
Doc drag your hidden collection of RH68/ RH69 out and let um rip!!!! ;) No pre70 dramas then :D ;D Cheers
-
:D jeez how I wish Tim!! sweet looking old blighters aren't they 8)
Firko, I feel they should be allowed as they were around back when even if very thin on the ground. Doesn't matter really but it could blow up if as you say, someone gets testy at a titles event.
-
is that ebay ts points or cdi ?
-
Firko and anyone, as much as it sounds nice please don't call or think of me as a guru/expert or think that I pretend to be such. Far from it infact but I do admit I may have a little more working knowledge than Joe the Plumber, if I know something or think I know something I like to put it out there if it may help ;)
Freaky I assume the ebay bike may infact still be points. Email the seller ;)
-
Don't underestimate yourself Doc. Your knowledge of Suzuki is very impressive. However, I know what you mean as I'm regarded as some sort of Maico guru and it is a bit annoying as I've forgotten more stuff than I actually know. There are far more knowledgable Maico folks on this forum than I. Instead of guru, how about Suzuki tragic? ;D
-
tragic, pathetic, obsessive compulsive, any of these are fine by me ;) definition of an expert??
An Ex is a 'has been' and a spurt is 'a drip under pressure' I guess I could be an expert of types ::)
-
I am just tragic......................Cheers Tim :D
-
Been thinking about that barrell doc and im with you, if you can replace the entire internals , stators etc with a 2001 gearbox and its all legal so long as it looks externally the same from the outside any thing else is a minor point.
And in this case if the barrell looks like one on the Rh pre 70 then i say its a goer going by the rules. I mean so what the transfers may be a little or completely differant, but that internal, so long as it looks externally similar to somthing or is from the period you represent its Kosha, In firko's case yes if you used a DT2MX barrell it wouldnt be ok cause the reed valve area makes it look externally differant and the square entry would look too differant externally to the non reed Dt. Inclusive that the reed wasnt on models prior and would be classed as a part.
I vote yes on this bill.
-
Fair enough if the RH69 barrel is the same but if it is in any way different externally, it can't be used. This argument is the same as the previous one about the legality of a couple of RC450 replicas. Any replica has to be precisely the same as its legal counterpart, not "sorta, kinda, from 10 feet away" the same. I still refer back to Eddie Brooks having to change the side that the "247cc" logo is cast into barrel as a sign that they are different, as anal as that may seem. Surely a bloke wouldn't go to those extremes if the TM barrel was identical externally?
-
It would have been a change of 248cc back to 246cc Firko ;) That's all fair enough, if I had an RH68/69/70 barrel she'd be 100% legal but I've only got 1 lifetime so she'll be running the TM bits. This bike may only get ridden occassionally at the local dirt track so practically any mods are allowable being as it'll go in seniors and not vintage ;)
-
It would have been a change of 248cc back to 246cc Firko
That gives you an indication of my Suzuki knowledge and verifies that there is a difference in the castings.
I'm only playing 'good cop, bad cop' here, It doesn't worry me as much as it'd bother the true rule nazi in WA who would be onto any TM powered TS in a heartbeat. The bloke was going to protest my Maico if it beat his BSA at the Coffs Nats because I have a later front wheel in it, even though the basic brake is the same. That's the degree these folks go to. I'm certain that many of the TS Suzukis running in pre 70 are using TM barrels and I'm sure it doesn't matter too much as far as performance goes. However, I believe the rules have to be enforced or it may open up the door to to all sorts of skullduggery, the owners crying, "but if it's OK for those Suzuki blokes, why can't I do it?" The old level playing field thing.
-
Why bother with all that when the trail bike cylinder is a better starting point ???
-
I agree Lozza.
-
Lozza is totally on the money, just internally adjust the proper era cylinder as you could have done in 68/69 ;) all OK no changing external bits and pieces and NO fitting and disguising later model stuff. :)
-
I think the TM thing was just a case of what available BaRrell was around. Not a performance issue persay but a ease of getting, are you saying the later ts 250 barrells are better ? im kinda of the thought that if i have one and it fits id stick it on regardelss of what it came off be it TS or Tm, some times trying to find all the right bits means you never get anything finished or the thing owes you so much money you dont ride it.
a 75 MX250b motor was able to get through scutineering at the Dt nats this year as pre 74, so a similar barrell in period at a club round would be fine. IM all for the level playing thing if its going to give some kind of compeditive advantage, but as if you say the TS barrell is infact better, why wouldnt a lesser 'standard TM " barrell be ok, sounds like rivets to me. What it means is there is another bike on the track and unless its top three dont mean 3 fiths of Fuc all, if its consistantly in the top 3 then you can re access its eligibility. I think there is a looseness that comes with the Pack , if your in it your ok, but if your on the podium you will need to be correct and i think those guys up there know they should be rules correct, acutually i think those guys are the tinkerers anyway and strive to get the best out of the correct kit, the rest of us just turn up.
We have started to let 75 model Tm's and DT's in our dirt track rounds and will probally do so this year as the field has near doubled since saying to the guys its ok so long as we tell you up front a top 3 finish means the question will be asked, and you will have to make your bike eligible under the rules as soon as you Do a top 3. So far no one guy has made it to the top 3 but all are as keen as mustard to ride and just enjoy being out there, they have no compeditive advantage, and they make up the fields which promotes the class as a happening thing ( momentum) and means we get starts in each round, if number as they did a few years back at some rounds dipped below 5 bikes we would run the risk of loosing our grid spot, so every one is happy to compromise for the greater good. For some reason if everyone is riding in a class then its popular and it keeps momentum, when the level of participation wanes, its no point in a 3 horse race and the class dies out. Currently The understanding that they will need to sort out there bikes if they get serious( place) or infact want to go to the nationals is clear and obvious to them, but they are happy to keep doing what they are doing and only ride the club and state rounds so i think its a win win for all and the sport in general.
The sport can only survive with the numbers and i do agree however that the Nationals IS the yard stick and should be maintained as the pinnicle showcase for the periods and standards amd rules be expected/enforced, but on the other coin we need to loosen up down the line so we can get these guys on the track and at least participating.
just thinking out loud here :)
-
I presume that Lozza was referring to a PRE 70 TS Cylinder. not a LATER version. I've got a late TS cylinder on my TM bitza and I'm pretty sure it's a different casting to the pre '70 version. I agree with Lozza that the early TS cylinder with it's rudimentary porting gives one a better building block for a race barrel that allows the porter to avoid the mistakes Suzuki made with the TM. Gary Treadwell, probably one of the best hands with a Dremel I've seen told me just that when I was thinking of building a TS for pre '70 back in '88 or '89. Putting on my other hat however, I can see that its an easier and more importantly cheaper option to use a freely available TM barrel. Not everybody can afford to pay the serious money a serious port job costs. Like I said earlier, I have no moral objection to using a TM barrel. My objection (for want of a better word) is purely based on the rulebook interpretation as it stands now. I'm certain that a TM barrel on a pre '70 TS is illegal. Having said that I'd back any lobby to change the Suzuki criteria in MoMs to allow the TM cylinder in as a flow on after I've done my homework and checked for myself that not only is the '71 TM 250J cylinder similar, but that all TM and TS cylinder differences be addressed. If the 250M has the same casting as a 250J, I'd back any move to include them all as flow ons. If they changed for the K,L and M models I'd only vote to allow the J cylinder.
a 75 MX250b motor was able to get through scutineering at the Dt nats this year as pre 74
Cliff Pattons YZ250b slider has been a concern for quite a while and needs to be addressed. The subject came up over a couple of beers at Dave Tanners place last weekend and the story that Dave told Jonesy and I regarding MA steward John Langfields rude and agressive attitude towards Dave when he (Dave) declared Pattons bike ilegal disturbed me. Langfield overruled Daves decision and allowed an obviously illegal bike to race. As the eligibility steward for the Nats, Daves decision should have stood. Langfield was out of his juristiction and should have had no say in the matter. The fact that Cliff Pattons dad Kevin is an old mate of Langfields wouldn't have had anything to do with the decision of course! :o . Due to a prior committment with my Jag I missed that title meeting but I'll be at the next Nats at Raymond Terrace. If that bike is allowed to race in the the kit I've seen it in the past, with its '75 YZ engine, I'll be having a quiet word with the officials. It's the old level playing field thing again.
We have started to let 75 model Tm's and DT's in our dirt track rounds
I'm fairly certain that the M model TM250 (1975) has always been allowed in as a flow on as long as the swingarm is replaced with one from an earlier model.
-
Accourding to the rule book the cut off is the tm250L, the M's are out.
I could be wrong but the 75 Tm swingarms wont take ealier models, its a differant width, which is a pain in the arse .
We have agreed down here if your using the same 13 1/2 inch travel shocks the differance isnt in the range, maybe only in the flex, and ultimitely its not the Gp world cup so we dont think its going to change the world if we let the 75 race, the motors a carry on so its allowed and we cant justify the small issue of slight change in swing arm against the merit of another bike on the track.
If it could be easily done we would insist, but as a scutineer on our club days im saying its ok but evoke the top 3 rule if they do as such place. fROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN AT OUR CLUB WHATEVER SLIGHT DIFFERANCE THERE IS IN THE 75 ISNT SHOWING THROUGH ON THE TRACK. There must be hundreds of 75 model TM's out there that dont get raced cause they are in no mans land, they really need to come back into the pre 75 at least at club level, like the 75 etc elsinores are, its just a waste of a lot off bikes out there. Perhaps the mOMS should be changed to show the 'M' as being OK, basically it was a momouth waiting for the ice age to finish, and all the R&D was going into the RM.
IF there is a easy mod for the Swing arm id love to hear about it, i think it would bring back a few to the sport and right now 75 TM are cheap as shit cause they live in the no mans land accourding to the book.
-
Freaky the truth is there aren't all that many '75 model TM's getting around. Most of them got bought up as playbikes and trailbikes. Everyone heard wind and had a taste of the RM series by '75 and were hanging out for the 'factory replica's' hence the sales in '75 TM's were at best, pathetic.
Firko, the thread started as I was unaware a TM250 barrel was not allowed in pre'70 as it comes from a different era and is a slightly different shape. Bore and stroke reamain unchanged as does the mounting arrangment, it's a bolt on item. The whole rulebook could be pulled to pieces and near every aspect contested if one really so desired and the results are anyones guess. A point in case being an RM125C cylinder. This cylinder is allowed in pre'78 as is the entire 125C engine but it is not physically the same as the '77 model. The barrel is externally different and it comes from another era so therefore why the discrimination with the TM barrel not allowed on an earlier model when TM250's did exist at the time. Maybe the rules need to be changed to rule out any flow on models. This as far as I can see is the only way of avoiding contentious issues. If it's made before the cutoff date it's in if not it's out. Simple and no confusion ;)
as for the alloy swingarm on the B, I still say it was definately available as an option so it should be provided it has the correct mounting, rear wheel, backing plate and torque arm fitted as per '77.
-
All good versions for the old TS. I can see what Doc is saying about the "reproduction barrell" and the lengths to which firkos associates went to for their reproduction. I guess the answer be in the eyes of the scuitineer of the day and how much info one could come up with to verify the validity of the claim for reproduction modification being as the barrel would be considered a major component.
Not a lot of the 69 TS around anymore to warrant too much drama about anyways..
-
not so sure doc, i know of at least 7+ 75 TM just sitting around with no class for them and i have 4 myself down stairs and i dont even like suzukis.
so they may not have sold back in the day but they seem to have lasted with time and maybe as you say they where left on the showroom floor and ended up as trail bikes so they may have had a soft life. maybe they all ended up in SA, funny i know of more 75 TM than 74's so there are still out there and alive, and not picked over as where the pre 75s have been since the lat 80's. Just a thought as to why
-
Want to sell one of those '75s Freaky?
-
there's a '69 motor complete sitting on ebay Aus for $35 at present. If it were closer I'd have a stab but logistics on something I probably don't really need makes me pass on it. Be a good buy for someone as rarely do the '69 bits pop up and a nice vintage motor to slot in a champion or similar dirt track chassis eh Firko ;)
Pokeymeister, I'm just being an argumentitive ass about the barrel as usual. It really doesn't matter either way but as Freaky said it does make for an easy/cheap hop up item that wasn't badly ported from the factory. TM250 powerspread is very flat and very very useable but the weight like the TS250 lets it's down somewhat. Though nowhere near as heavy as the '69 TS ,which was I think the heaviest 250 traily ever, the TM250 still feels a little heavy to ride mx :o a lot of the weight on these '69ers is in the motor as they're more or less a T500 snipped in half. This is why they run 3 main bearings on the crank. All the T500 hop up specs work just dandy I've been told by Muz from the T/TR500 oz site. I've all the specs excepting the pipe as I'd like this to exit on the left ;) I like the '75 TM's Freaky, my pick of them all. If you notice all my TM's and RM/TM hybrid sport the '75 sunburst tank stickers/graphics ;)
-
mm i like the 74 stripe but i can see how the rising sunsets ya. :O)
yer firko there a few down there i think one is IN bits whichwas quickies bike he was selling and another from memory was your mate cozzies which i think was complete but i havent paid it much notice since last year when it was dropped off, what condition did you want one in ? or id also send major bits (frame etc) if you want to rebuild ya own so you can use new bits and not broken bars, levers, shocks etc, you kow the stuff you pay for but end up ditchen anyway cause they are dungers after 30 years i think i thow out 7 sets of bend bars last hard rubish even took em off bikes cause they where all bend on one side any way, can stack the bikes better now better anyway and theives would be cursing as they try to walk em out the house :O)
i think this was it but i borrowed the forks to take as spares to tassie and hanvet put it back together but im sure there is a complete bike in there somewhere, i remeber it had metal number plates ?
-
I really only need an engine for my TM/TS. The bike I built for VMX mag a few years back is getting a rebirth as the Klub Kevlar courtesy bike for our friends without a current running vintage mount. I figured that an update on the TS engine would be a nice thing and seeing that you've aquired a stash of TM stuff, do you want to sell me an engine? I can pick it up in December from Walters if you're OK with it. How much?
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-8/1062154/suz.jpg)
-
mmm not sure i want to take a motor out of a bike Firko. A used 75 frame is about a usefal as well the preverbial. But i might be able to locate one, i came across a Antig with a TM motor in it last week and im sure it would be a better seller for him without the motor in it.
What do you want to spend ? im guessing you might be better getting one off ebay if thats all you need.
Wouldnt say i have a stash, im prity ruthless with only buying stuff that breaks or is hard to find when your loking for it, I got cranks and gearset from a 73, a complete 74 bottom end, but i cant say i have a complete running motor thats not sitting in a bike ATM. although i do have a complet 75 ish TS 250 that i can pull the motor out of or sell the whole thing, but thats not really going to be any upgrade from what you have there. IS the motor in that one you got a TM bottom end and a TS barrell ? Whats the story with that motor thats in it ?
-
The motor I've got in the VMX project bike is a '76 TS250 that had been rebuilt prior to us owning it. The oil slinger has been removed and whatever mod is needed to run premix has been done. We used the donor bike as a farm bike but the frame snapped in half at the steering head after some solid jumping in and out of a dry dam one weekend. I'd previously found a couple of TM J frames in a skip bin so decided to combine the lot along with a bunch of donated crap and second hand stuff from our stash to build the original $100 budget vintage racer. Since then it's sat in the garden shed and has only been ridden a couple of times. I bought a Circle F pipe for it last year and when you mentioned that you had a few '75 TMs and bits I figured that as the bike's possibly ilegal for pre '75 racing anyway, why not fit a '75 TM engine. It's not a big deal though as the TS motor goes quite well actually, even with the 36mm Mikuni that's on it because that's all I had when I built her......As I've just bought a few bikes from the US and a new bling mountain bike I'm a little short of readies at the moment so I can't really pay a lot.
I came across a Antig with a TM motor in it last week and im sure it would be a better seller for him without the motor in it.
How much for the Antig, with or without the engine? I recently sold my Elstar Maico and wouldn't mind building another. Also, that ilegal YZB Hagon bloke had better watch out at next years Nats. A fellow Kevlar is building a legal RH250/Godden for the 250 class.
-
mark
isnt the godden frames start in 1975 with the development of the weslake.befor that elstar. hagon or antig then all the home made ones.i have a gen pre 70 slider roller home made of corse
cheers
jim
-
Not sure when Goddens came out Jim. Not really my problem ::). It appears to be a vey early 2 stroker version though. I'm sure this frame could morph into a home made one if need be.
-
Pattons motor was a MXB 75/76 looing at the serial number not a YZ, either way it and no PRe 75 unit, specially as its a major component and aint no follow on. Not sure why he dont use a 74 mx it will fit strainght in the frame anyway.......actually come to think of it i know why id be trying to get a B motor through..............
-
cliff has parked the hagon yamaha
riding his jap and later mod jawa
as you know 75 modles were around in 1974 but deemed as 1975.
hagon & paul spoonner from sydney sold the latest motor in frames avalable.kevin (cliffs dad) raced the bike in 1974 and won state and national titles on it.
-
Getting back to the pre70 Suz, the early barrels had the oil injection point on RHS of barrel while later ones are on left I believe. Same stud pattern (as another has said).
What Lozza maybe getting at wrt being better off w TS barrell over TM to start w is that TS barrel had unbridged Ex port which flows better (when enlarged) than bridged one.
Wrt pre70 RHs & TMs, I'm no Suzi guru but I tho't it was only the 67 TM that was also called the RH66 - exact same bike. As far as I knew, it was the only pre70 'RH' available to the public.
The RH69-70 is VERY diff to any TS/TM pre or post 70.
-
Pattons motor was a MXB 75/76 looing at the serial number not a YZ, either way it and no PRe 75 unit, specially as its a major component and aint no follow on. Not sure why he dont use a 74 mx it will fit strainght in the frame anyway.......
Is it possible that a MX-B motor is a 'follow-on' version of the YZ-B motor?
-
Pattons motor was a MXB 75/76 looing at the serial number not a YZ, either way it and no PRe 75 unit, specially as its a major component and aint no follow on. Not sure why he dont use a 74 mx it will fit strainght in the frame anyway.......
Is it possible that a MX-B motor is a 'follow-on' version of the YZ-B motor?
NO, they use the 509 prefix which can be fitted out with YZ250C parts very easily. Definitely not pre '75 kosher.
-
Of course. Which is why you shouldn't drink and post...
Then again, maybe the MX-B engine is arguably a carry-over for the MX-A or DT-A engine?
Radially finned head is not OK, but the rest is?
-
Pattons motor was a MXB 75/76 looing at the serial number not a YZ
Ooops, I made a Freudian slip, I knew it was an MX B but kept calling it a YZ B, the first is ilegal, the second legal.
No matter what slant is put on it, the MX B engine is not eligible for pre '75. While it's certainly based on the earlier MX/DT A engine, it is its own entity and not a flow on. The rules are the rules and the MX 250B is not, and never has been legal for pre '75. John Langfield had no right to overrule Dave Tanner, the official eligibility steward on his decision to not allow Pattons bike to race. The fact that Kevin Patton may have ridden the bike in 1974 means two fifths of fork all as the MX250 B is the factory designated 1975 model. The fact that it may have been available in late '74 is irrelevent.
If I had come second to that bike at the Canberra Nats I'd feel cheated and let down by the system.
-
Hey, I'm not trying to justify it!
Just trying to work out whether there was any honest reason for allowing it.
What prevents an MX-B motor being called a carry-over pre-75 motor, apart from the (easily changed) cylinder head?
-
As mentioned Nathan it is the Yamaha factory designated 1975 model. I have a Yamaha manual here and it states that on the first page. Like all this follow on stuff Yamaha, Suzuki, Honda CZ Vespa and all. if you think it is unchanged machine except for maybe graphics, prepare a case for the controlling bodies to review. :)
-
Nathan, I'm not totally certain but I've been told by folks who are are far more knowledgable than I in these matters that the cylinder is vastly improved over that of the A model and that there are various other changes. Having raced both models myself back in the day I know for certain just from my 'seat of the pants' instincts that the B is vastly superior to the A in every performance aspect. Of course it can be argued that the A cylinder can be ported to B specs or in reverse, an A head can be fitted to a B and all is well. If the latter was allowed in pre '75 it'd open up the old chestnuts of allowing Mk 8 250 Pursangs, VA125 Montys and all of the other borderline machines whose owners feel victimised because their bikes were available in 1974.
The factory designated 1975 model stanza was included to cut these disputes off at the pass. Remember that it's not just the MX B engine that's not allowed, it's the whole bike. The whole engineering concept of the MX B belongs in the next generation of motocross history, purely for its suspension package*. December 31 1974 was deliberately chosen as a cutoff date as it marked the end of the 7" and4" suspension travel era. Even though the MX B engine may be considered an update of the A model, the bike as an entire package is a whole new deal that launched Yamaha into its next phase of development. You can't seperate the engine from the whole unit and call it a flow on while still disallowing the monoshock frame. It's all or nothing.
*Before somebody enters the discussion with the notion that the YZB is allowed in pre '75 and it features a similar monoshock suspension system to the MXB, an explanation is in order. In the first few years of the sport the YZ250/360 B was not allowed, a situation accepted by most in the sport. Then along came a Victorian named Jody Mason who challenged the validity of that ruling and lobbied to be allowed to race his YZ 250B. I got the job (along with Peter Drakeford, I believe) of researching the history of the YZB for the commission. Despite my and other delegates objections on both moral and engineering grounds for the same reasons I have laid out in the previous MXB paragraphs, Yamahas own paperwork proved that the YZB was indeed a 1974 factory designated model and for that reason alone we concluded that it'd be discriminatory if we disallowed the YZB because of its advanced suspension travel yet allowed 74.5 Maicos, CCMs and other bikes with more than 4" of rear travel. We voted to allow the YZB on the condition that the suspension travel be restricted to 7" and 4", as we'd insisted the Maicos, CCMs and others do. Ironically, Mason, the guy who bought this whole situation to a head, never did race his YZ250B or any other vintage motocross bike to my knowledge. He did ride some speedway and classic dirt track on Jawas. He was last spotted punting a Charger around Eastern Creek in the Biante series.