OzVMX Forum
Marque Remarks => Kawasaki => Topic started by: BAHNZY on July 05, 2009, 08:05:12 pm
-
Now that i have settled and had time to reflect, at Classic Dirt i had a local fellow come up and have a chat with me about the KX5 and whilst we chatted about the bike in general, his parting comment was something like, "Nice bike but don't bother bringing it in that spec to the Nationals as we wont even let you take it off the trailer"
I was rather a bit taken back at the time but quickly forgot about it and didn't give it a second thought, but recently have started to think what a tool he was, particulary when he diddnt even have the decency to ask about the spec.
So brake caliper and sprocket cover aside, what is the issue with the bike?
An i'd argue the case about the caliper as it is the same spec caliper as what is fitted to a 1984 CR500.
Interested with comments from anyone, and i wont be taking the bike (or for that matter myself) to the Nationals. Simply ran out of time and money. :(
(http://www.wideopenflatout.com/KX5/KX500_A.JPG)
(http://www.wideopenflatout.com/KX5/KX500_B.JPG)
-
Must be the forks that got him offside and confused.
-
I can't see anything Bahnsy, I can even lend you an original front Caliper if you want, but if its the same as an '84 CR the WTF??
I wouldn't go anywhere near the nationals myself, too many Tools with Badges for my liking... :-\
-
Please pretty please can I have your suspension, I went out for a final test ride on my KX500 today and my tired old shock and a fork seal blew out,doh. after I've just entered the nationals!
-
4054 in that version where after 85 , so I believe :)
Wrong! :-*
-
The cap at the top will give you the month and year of manufacturing .
I have these forks on two 84 Kato's and the caps screw off, so how do you control that?
Just go get a 91 model pair and screw 84 model caps in them?
-
It's one thing if the forks were OEM equipment from a specific manafacturer like KTM, but these forks are stamped H286 on the top cap and were originally purchased to be fitted to a 1986 Honda XR350. I specifically searched Australia and USA for "AfterMarket" units not OEM units so i don't contravene;
18.7.14.4 All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured
As the forks have no external adjustments and are the same specification as the 1984 KTM MX models, save for the disc brake lower section they are essentially a 1984 specification 4054.
For the rest of the parts;
- The front wheel is the original 83 KX500 unit
- The caliper is a dual 20mm piston caliper and color aside is the same spec as a 1984 Honda (the Honda's were black)
- The brake master cylinder is the original 83 KX500 unit
- A custom brake line was used to match the cylinder and caliper
- The front disc is a new aftermarket replacement that was specifically ordered to not have holes so as to be the same as the 83 KX500 disc.
Given that they are aftermarket units, not something taken from a production bike, if a race organiser was looking to penalise me for running these units, then i will sign as many $70 cheques as i need to challenge all the EVO bikes running around with brand new Ohlins or similar. ;D
-
Bahnsy if the forks were available over the counter in 1984 then you've got nothing to worry about.
Ohlins were available in the era of an evo bike so there is not a problem with them.
-
No stress Walter. ;)
These are the forks that we discussed the top out bump stops.
As for the performance of the WP4054 Vs the Kawi 43mm units, i'm struggling to find much other than the fact that the billet clamps have a multitude of bar positions that the Kawi units didn't have. For a 6'2" 110kg rider this has been the biggest advantage, that and the high bend renthal twin walls.
I don't think the bike will ever be at a National Title as i have learned very quick that it's about 3 times the bike that i will ever be capable of riding.
-
Ohlins were available in the era of an evo bike so there is not a problem with them.
Kinda, but not with high/low or external adjustments and the larger shafts of the new units.
All my twin shock bikes (5 of them) have period Ohlins, not the later model units for this reason. Oh and the cost ;)
-
FireKwaka,
Front forks are peice of piss to service, the rear shock not so. They have an alloy body that flogs out and at times makes them rather difficult and expensive to repair.
I have (as my emergency back up) the original rear shock that has recently been rebuilt. If you are stuck, let me know.
I have had a lot of help from people in this sport, (some have responded in this thread) and as Earl Hickey's list tells us we need to be minfull of KARMA.
-
too simple an answer - sprocket cover?
-
nice bike you cant ride it cause you stole maico 31 s
number ;D ;D
i always thought 84 ktm 4054 forks were drum
and they went disc in 85 ???
-
Correct, KTM went a bit wayward around 83/84/85.
1983 495MX 42mm conventional forks (Marzocchi from memory) with a Disc and single piston caliper
1984 495MX 40mm USD WP4054 with Twin Leading Drum
1985 495MX 40mm USD WP4054 with Disc & either a Brembo or KTM proprietry twin piston caliper
According to the parts manuals the 84 & 85 fork are basically mechanically the same save for the caliper Vs drum brake mounting hardware. From memory the big change came in 86 or 87 when the forks got external adjustment.
-
Bahnsy - of course you could always pass it on to somebody else to have the shite scared out of them as well??????
;)
Rossco
-
Banshy,
Aren't they the Husky ones (cr500) ?
I think the potential age of the forks might be the issue.
Where did you get the 4054 stickers from, I'm rebuilding a set atm.
Are the calipers brembo?
Looks great no matter when they where made.
-
Thanks very much for your offer Bahnsy, that is very generous of you. Your KX is one fine example it would be good to see it circulating. Competing in these Nationals (with a class for pre 84's and competing with legends) is something I have dreamed of since I started developing my KX 7yrs ago. I have had to work with a very limited budget so it has taken a long time and a lot of fabrication to come up with a competitive bike, it may not be very original but as long as I can race the sucker I'm happy. To me thats the joy of this VMX thing you can race on a low budget. I was #8 at CD6.
I currently run a modified top linkage with some sort of Honda shock (83 XR I think) mounted upside down. I have a mate seeing if he can replace the leaking seal at the moment, but if it isn't repairable I have another standard top linkage so if I get stuck your offer would be very much appreciated.
-
Interesting comment made by your mate Bahnsy.
If it makes you feel any better, at CD6 I saw a bike with "Pre-85" on the sideplates, and a clearly non-carry-over 85 model front disc brake on it...
My knowledge of such things is limited, but I can't see anything wrong with your bike as a pre-85 racer.
-
......on a side note, I have a strange recollection of a conversation with someone about Rad's rebuilding the rear shocks with steel bodies.
Might be worth a phone call.
-
NICE GREEN MACHINE in any case!
OLDYZMAN
-
FireKwaka,
No stress let me know what you want to do, remembering that internal freight (Aus Post) will be 5 days depending on your location. Currently the std Kawi shock is set up for a 95 kg rider, can swap the spring out for the original 83 KX500 spring if i can find it. Just let me know.
EVO550,
Q: Aren't they the Husky ones (cr500) ?
A: The Husky set that i have were originally destined for the KX5, they have been put aside for the 84 RM125. The Husky forks are stamped with HVA5 and 48-86 on the top cap. They are exactly the same configuration as the units in the KX5 with the only differnece being the outer body length and fork stroke. When i did the sums between the two i figured that the Honda units were a much better match to the original Kawasaki dimension/geometry than the Husky units.
Q: I think the potential age of the forks might be the issue.
A: I wrestled with this for a while and applied the interpretation of;
18.7.14.4 All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured.
As the forks are the same construction as a 1984 KTM MXC500 then they would be deemed to be of the same period.
The front wheel is orignal, the disc original and the caliper from an 84 Honda so i see it as all being components and technology that was avalaible before 31st December 1984. Essentially you could have built that same front end in 1984, just with a slightly different brake caliper mount, say something like the works 82 SR500 with the front axle hinge system.
Regarding 18.7.14.3 Modifications using later equipment are not allowed.
My interpretation of this is that you cant use later OEM equipment. As the forks are not OEM then you have to go to 18.7.14.4
Q: Where did you get the 4054 stickers from, I'm rebuilding a set atm.
A: The forks came with AMA Pro Racing stickers and the original Supplied By White Brothers "White Power" stickers. They were re-produced by NINETWODECALS in Queensland. I will track down his number and post it up here. Basically i re-created the arwork in Corell, sent it to him and he printed them up. He will will have them all on file so it would be just a matter of hitting the print button for some more. All the hard work has been done.
Q: Are the calipers brembo?
A: The unit on the KX5 is a Nissin. The RM125 will have a Brembo, same as the 86 Husky.
Bahnsy
-
Based on what you've written I reckon there'd be no problems Bahnsy. It'd probably be wise to bring proof that all of the components fit within the criteria just in case someone gets a little picky. It's one of lifes little pleasures showing these whingers up as the wankers they are. ;D
-
Bahnsy,Try and block out thosr c**k heads mate.Its those type of small minded uneducated tossers that drive people away from the sport.Nice bike mate.
-
Barnsy
83/84 kawasaki,s didnt have up side down forks
I agree thats its not pre 85 legal, if you had usd simons forks that would be different
You know its not right.
Stu
-
straight to the point there stu ,so that your stance as a ma representative
that how you would vote ?
NEXT PROBLEM
-
CAN WE HAVE A JUDGE MENT ON THE FOOT PEG SPINGS WHILE YOU ARE AT IT ,MIGHT SAVE SOME PEOPLE LOTSA PETROL AND TIME :o
-
springs Yes
-
My take on it is that if the forks were indeed from an 84 KTM with the drum brake, then it would be legal. The disc caliper hanger and the actual year of the forks are the sticking point IMO, although I suppose you could have made the caliper hanger to suit the KTM forks in 1984.
Going on Bahnsy's rationale that the forks are legal, being of the same or similar basic design as '84, even though they are from '85 or '86, that would then make the twin shock KX500 in another thread EVO legal if it had a drum brake front. Then it would meet the basic no linkage, no disc brakes, no water cooling guide lines even though the engine is from a later model. After all it's just a basic old air cooled engine design which has existed forever. BUTwe all know what would happen if it were presented to race EVO, and would be deafened by the cry foul. I don't really care and believe the more bikes on the track, the better. Maybe there should classes to cater for these such bikes, without the BS, as long as they meet the basic criteria. EVO ultimate or pre '85 super or so on. Wouldn't we see some trick bikes then.
Cheers,
K
-
Barnsy
83/84 kawasaki,s didnt have up side down forks
I agree thats its not pre 85 legal, if you had usd simons forks that would be different
You know its not right.
Stu
Interesting.
As far as I can see, the whole debate comes down to two points, which have been touched upon in this thread, but not directly addressed:
1. Could you buy a set of WP4054s before 1985, with that caliper mount on it (most likely as an after-market part intended for a Honda)?
2. Are the 85/86 build 4054s visually and operationally the same as the pre-85 build 4054s?
If you can get a Yes to both quesitions, then its a no-brainer: The bike is legal as a pre-85 race bike.
I don't understand why people confuse the "carry-over" rule so much. If it looks and operates the same as a part that was made in the correct era, then its treated the same as the part from the correct era. (Edit: That last statement is a general one, not specifically related to this thread).
Second edit: Even if the answer(s) is/are No, there's still room for argument - it just won't be so clear-cut.
-
The 'problem' seems to be solvable if Bahnsy can prove without doubt that those particular WP4054 forks were available in 1984. If he can prove that, it's irrelevent whether Kawasakis came with USD forks or not.
-
A small point that seems to be lost. These forks are not OEM from a bike manafacturer, they are aftermarket items.
If you had a set of USD Simmons that were manafactured in 1985/6, would you not be permitted to use them even when they are the same configuration as the ones made in 1984?
Regarding the KX twin shock with a KX500 engine, thats a rediculous thought that it could run in EVO with a drum front end. The engine came from a linkage suspended/disc braked bike. Just beacuse it is air cooled does not make it o/k. If that was the case we would see CR250 Honda framed bikes getting around with 45+HP XR400 engines, or WR500 engines in MonoShock framed 79 model YZ250's, their air cooled after all.
(http://www.ktm495.mxbikes.com/ktmanual/495-84_Cover-Q75-1024x768.jpg)
-
Bahnsy the issue is not if they were OEM or aftermarket the issue is if YOU can prove that this model fork was RACED in the period. If you can provide solid evidence that that fork was raced in the period it's a done deal.That's the way the rule is written and usually* interpreted.There are a few pics I googled up of Heinz Kinigadner's title winning 250's 1 had disc/RWU and the other USD/disc, date unknown.
This kind of thing is another excellent example why log books are a good idea and stop issues like this arising. By putting the proof of eligability burden squarely on the applicant.
-
Bahnsy the issue is not if they were OEM or aftermarket the issue is if YOU can prove that this model fork was RACED in the period
Not quite right Lozza. You have to prove that the forks were available not whether they were raced. It's only a little thing but it's an important little thing. The disc brake bracket seems to be the outstanding point here, as irrelevent as it may seem.
-
It's all about the "spin" you put on it. Bahnsy want's his bike to be legal and clearly it is not, but he's going his hardest. Maybe if he machined a brake caliper hanger out of a piece of aluminium (preferably 30 years old) it would be legal. Yet he states that the KX500 air cooled, twin shock, isn't legal for EVO because of the fact the engine came from a single shock bike, even though you can apply his rationale to it just the same as the forks in his bike. It's just semantics. As for his statement about XR400 engines etc in old chassis', that is the most ridiculous statement so far, because that kind of bike would not be in the "spirit" of VMX. I have a set of disc WP4054's in the shed but don't want to ride the pre '90 classes which is where they belong. We've been through this a thousand times before, blah blah blah.....
Cheers,
K
-
FWIW i reckon if its aircooled,drum braked and twin shock then let it in for EVO. I dont reckon you will ever see some one trying to put an xr400 motor in anything, ever! let alone a WR500 motor in a YZ250F.... I think some people are getting too emotional about the rules and getting too wound up about legalities etc. Take a step back people and remember why we ride/restore these things, mainly for the FUN of it, and mixing with people who have an affinity for these old bikes and the era.
-
In the US, the AHRMA makes this an easy call. No disc brakes.
-
maybe i should take out my works forks and fit the simons UKD60 i have to my 79 KX500 and put twin leading brakes on it then it would be twin shock drum brakes and air cooled but it would still be NOT WITHIN THE SPIRT OF EVO by some standards but lucky i didnt build it for evo hey as this is built within the guide lines for pre 85 its all about how you want to read the rules as for the forks on bahnys kx are of no advantage but they are from a latter model bike due to the disc brake carrier so if you want to be anal like some and us the phrase NOT WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF PRE85 then they are not leagal but it all comes down to the riders ability and how much you twist that throttle
-
This is the type of situation that gives the critics amunition to call the officials, "anal, pedantic and 'scrutinazis'' and other derogatory terms but in the end it needs to be sorted. It really comes down to three ways of looking at the situation.
1:Assuming the WP forks with the disc bracket are post 1984, the proper scrutineering decision would be to not allow the bike to compete.
2:The other, more lenient way of looking at it is that, assuming the disc carrier WPs are identical in every other way to the pre '85 drum braked version shown in the KTM ad Bahnsy posted perhaps there'd be no percieved advantage and the bike should be allowed to compete.
3:If the second option is taken the situation then arises that the combination of WP forks and disc brakes didn't exist before 1985, even though it's a given that the disc and caliper are kosher pre 85 items. It's the combination that is is in question not so much the individual components.
Not being a pre 85 class expert I've gone from one opinion to another on Bahnsys bike after seeing more and more 'evidence'. I'm relying on evidence that's been presented here and as much as I'd love to see such a cool bike compete at Conondale, I doubt it if the eligibility steward could in all honesty pass the bike based on what's been presented here.Having said that if Rod has any printed evidence that WP 4054 forks with the disc caliper carrier dide appear prior to 1985 he deserves to race it.
Situations like this are why the eligibility scrutineers job often sucks. Bahnsys Kawasaki is a very cool bike that rides the veerrry fine line between cool and ilegal. In an engineering sense it's doubtful that the bike possesses any definitive advantages over another machine in the same class using 43mm Showa cartridge forks full of modern technology but sadly a line has to be drawn somewhere.
I really hope I'm not called to give advice on this one at Conondale.
-
this is my first time to read this thread. GREAT BIKE Bahnsey! One thing i noticed on the 4054 stickers they have ACIR i think? was that only on adjustable models? On most of my photos on the aftermarket 4054's from around 87/88 they have those stickers but did the early ones still have those stickers?
Does anyone have an aftermarket listing showing 4054 available for purchase for a 84 KX500?
-
What Firko said.
Here's a point, picking up on something that bigk said:
Assuming that there were no disc-brakes 4054s in 1984, would it be legal to machine up a lower mount to fit the pre-85 caliper?
I'd argue that the answer is "Yes" - the production components are all pre-85, and the custom bit to marry them together could have been made pre-85.
Assuming that most people agree with that, then what is acheived by forcing Bahnsy to spend hundreds of dollars on machining up cusom bits that already exist as (later) production parts?
-
As for the word anal firko it is not directed at any one person including officals it means people that carnt say one thing and do another as has happened here in vic. So where do you draw the line on bike class rules if it looks close is that good enough well my kx500 is close if i fit a drum brakes front end but we all know that for evo it still wont cut it as for it has later model parts ie forks and caliper maybe i should have said fussy ,hi standards , straight down the line , my coment is not derogatory just maybe in the wrong context sorry for whom has taken offence to this
-
No Kaw440, I wasn't referring to you at all, in fact I'd overlooked the reference in your statement. I was speaking generally about some peoples attitudes to the rulebook and scrutineers. No offence taken at all mate ;)
-
In the US, the AHRMA makes this an easy call. No disc brakes.
You are talking about a completely different class of Racing in the US known as "Ultima", nothing to do with Pre 85 or us here in Australia where pre 85 is ummm.... pre 85!
-
In the US, the AHRMA makes this an easy call. No disc brakes.
You are talking about a completely different class of Racing in the US known as "Ultima", nothing to do with Pre 85 or us here in Australia where pre 85 is ummm.... pre 85!
It appears that the classes are more similar than different. AHRMA's Ultima class is also '84 and earlier, but bike's with disc brakes are excluded. Disc brakes are a big advantage over even the best drum brakes so it makes sense to make that the line of demarcation for class designation. This also eliminates the gray area that y'all are currently debating.
-
i thought about this a bit and i think there are a few scenarios.
1 - claim that they are 4054's off a 1984 KTM, remove the honda number stamped in the cap and stamp a KTM number and pre 85 date of manufacture. You would then have to machine custom made lower axle/caliper mounts to use a pre 85 cailper of your choice. In theory you could say that any KX owner during 1984 could have got a set off a KTM and machined his own lower axle/caliper mounts.
Problem is someone could come along and pick that the outer and inner tubes may not be the same length as what was on the 84 KTM and have the same amount of travel.
2 - produce evidence that 4054's were available for purchase as an aftermarket item during 1984 or even better available specifically for the 84 KX500. You could then probably get away with what you have done, although if it was me i would probably machine custom made lower axle/caliper mounts to suit the KX wheel/brake if the Honda ones are obviously different to what would of been sold on the aftermarket set specifically for the KX. That way you could use the KX 500 caliper aswell. I would even go as far as removing the honda number stamped on the cap and leave it blank. You could then claim the caps and lower mounts were broken/butchered and you had those parts reproduced which i think would be ok.
If you want to find out if there were 4054's sold as aftermarket forks during 84 for the KX500 i would be tracking down Tom or Dan White in USA from White Brothers. They should know.
Hypertheotically you could have bought a new/nos cylinder from Kawasaki in say 1988 for the 84 KX 500 that was cast in 1988 for example but it is legal as its the same part but just made later. So i think it should be legal to use the 86 4054's if you provide proof to the scrutineer that they are essentially the same.
I think what Bahnesy has done is more legal than all the modern Ohlins twin shocks out there that are being made in current yr 2009 and dont look the same as what was available pre 85.
-
Firko I can't find any reference to 'available' or 'freely available' I can only find 18.7.14.2, 18.7.14.3 and 18.7.14.4 in the 08 MoMS. .3 states 'Modifications using later equipment are not allowed but .4 states "All components are to be from the period the machine was manufactured". Which contradict each other a bit.
18.6.0.4 refers to "components manufactured within the period" and "true reflection of the period depicted"
There is an overview at the start of Historic Road racing section but NO such staement at the beginning of Classic Motocross.There is also a Eligability paragraph for Road racing which is where I got my interpretation of eligabilty from, 16.4.0.5 b) "For a race bike the year in which the machine first appeared or the latest major component first appeared in open competition"
There should be a defining statement which explains major and minor components.This would help where some component was available, raced and used with in the period but opinion is divided on if it's with the spirit of the rules.I think a carbon copy of the road race rules should be included for up to Pre-85 mx.
Would then be up to legal eagles like Nitram to tell us which rules carries the most weight. ;D
-
very interesting discussion and i am enjoying it BUT as barnsy has mentioned in his original post he won't be going to the Nats so it's a non issue at present. Even in VIPER i don't think it will be an issue for Pre 85'
So What's Wrong With It? nothing, its a very nice bike and one i want to see trackside "Top Job Bahnster"
Interested with comments from anyone, and i wont be taking the bike (or for that matter myself) to the Nationals. Simply ran out of time and money. :(
-
I might of missed this in all the post somewhere but where WP 4054s available AFTERMARKET for a honda in 84? As this is what these ones are ment to represent. If so are these forks mechanicaly the same. Dont worry about looks. I think it should be legal just on pure looks anyway. Niiiccceeee.
-
Wow, missed this one till now. No doubt the bike looks fantastic and trick. All for trick bikes. As far as im concerned, you are just trying to find a way to make it legal to suit the bike. Its just not right in my eyes. Same as Glen Bells 84 CR500 with the WP's. Again in my opinion, not in the spirit.
I too have a set of USD WP's but i will put them on an '85 model or later to fit in the pre '90 era .
-
If I read the comments thus far, If the lower disc mount was removed, the 84 drum brake housing was fitted and then modified to take the KX500 original calliper it would be o/k. I’ll be first to admit, as I have elsewhere previously in this thread, that a disc brake 4054 was not “commercially” available in 1984 although a drum brake version was. My thought was that the major component (Ie: The forks) was o/k given that the “follow rule” exists in nearly every class of Vintage/Classic motocross. I won’t be chopping up a very expensive set of forks to make them look like they fit within the ERA so I will just live with the bike as is and use it in the odd VIPER event and the CLASSIC DIRT’s in years to come although I will swap out the 1984 Honda calliper for the 1983 Kawasaki calliper to make it look more era specific.
However……
If I was serious about racing and was on the grid with other bikes that were completely standard and built within the spirit of the era then I wouldn’t even bother, I’d leave the standard 43mm unit’s in. The problem is that a lot of riders “stretch” the rules with one or more of the below listed items, all of which to some degree where never available back in the day. So is the issue that the 4054’s are so visually different or do they represent such a performance advantage over the 43mm units that make them so “Not In The Spirit”
If the fitting these forks is not in the spirit of the ERA, where does that leave us with;
- Aftermarket ignitions
- Adjustable rear shocks
- PD Valves
- 2000 onward build replacement carburettors
- Aftermarket exhaust systems
- Aftermarket reed valve systems
- Excell rims & HD stainless Steel Spokes.
You can’t be half pregnant. Why is it that no one seems to bat an eye lid at late model Ohlins or Excell rims?
-
LWC82PE
The ACIR Stickers were the first stickers (that I could find) that refer to the 4054. So far as I can work out, ACIR stands for Anti Cavitation ? ?
What year that was introduced I am not sure, the stickers just looked good.
-
Firko I can't find any reference to 'available' or 'freely available' I can only find 18.7.14.2, 18.7.14.3 and 18.7.14.4 in the 08 MoMS. .3 states 'Modifications using later equipment are not allowed but .4 states "All components are to be from the period the machine was manufactured". Which contradict each other a bit.
Lozza You say tomato, I say tomayto......It's all word games. I think it's all irrelevent whether a component was "used in open competition", "freely available" or merely "available" in a given period of time. It's all the same. If the component was from a motorcycle offered for sale prior the designated year cutoff it must be allowed whether it was used on a bike "in open competition" or to ride to the 7-11 for a packet of ciggys. ;)
-
Why is it that no one seems to bat an eye lid at late model Ohlins or Excell rims?
I dont know why, but its not just ohlins, there are several other brands out there that are of designs not available back then.
I dont have a problem with shocks with external damping adjustments if they are from the period they are in. There are a couple brands around pre 85 that had external adjustments so i dont think a blanket ban can be put on external adjustments.
Shocks contribute a lot ot the performance of a bike but your virually allowed to run what ever you want even though they may look out of place or not fit the era, yet the 4054's which i feel do just fit in the 84 period seem to not be accepted.
On the otherhand for me its important the bike looks right so i do not mind if you have PD valves or high tech internal engine mods or ingnitions as they are not seen.
It would be virtually impossible to police those things unless scrutineers pulled apart every set of forks and engine, so as those things are not seen i think its fine to allow them but wouldnt you feel a lot better and true to yourself knowing you won a race without the need for fancy internal fork or engine mods and you were riding a bike with the technology available back then ;)
-
Why is it that no one seems to bat an eye lid at late model Ohlins or Excell rims?
Looking at the rule book it appears that shocks are free to use whatever you want. Because shocks blow, wear out, rust, bend or break and NOS std shocks are not available it seems logical to be able to use whatever is on the market to suit a vintage bike. Since the rule was written externally adjustable shocks have come onto the market. I don't know whether the rule needs to be updated or not.. externally adjustable shocks work no better than correctly valved non adjustable shocks but they do look more modern.
What's the performance advantage in using Excell rims? Again it's a matter of what is available.. NOS rims from the 70's are a little scarce.
-
Johhny O,
My take.
Looking at the rule book it appears that shocks are free to use whatever you want.
There is no reference to shock absorbers for EVO and Pre85 (that I can find) in the GCR’s. If there is an interpretation of them, it would be appreciated if someone could please pass them on.
Because shocks blow, wear out, rust, bend or break and NOS std shocks are not available it seems logical to be able to use whatever is on the market to suit a vintage bike.
Agree, but it is just as economical, if not more economical to have the original units overhauled or use period available aftermarket units such as Koni, Works Performance, Ohlins, Mulholland etc.
Externally adjustable shocks work no better than correctly valved non adjustable shocks but they do look more modern.
Agree/Disagree. The non adjustable shocks are as good as the adjustable units only on a given track. One week on a grass track and they are fine, the next week on a MX track, they would need to be revalved. An externally adjustable shock would need nothing more than the turn of a dial.
What's the performance advantage in using Excell rims?
Ask some of the guys that have raced VIPER in the last few years. Bent & Broken rims are not common, but we have seen more than we care to given the results of what could happen on the downside of a jump.
-
i have been watching this for a while now
being a kx500 owner and racer
i have to agree with 090 and johnny o
i feel its not in the spirit of the era and class
sure people try to bend the rules in certain areas but
the problem is its very obvious to look at :o
i raced A grade back through the early eightys and i never saw
aftermarket wp forks fitted no one bothered and they were only availiable on 84 ktms
with drum, simons forks were availiable trevor flood sold them but not many were used
before 85 ,vandenberg tried them but took them off and went back to oem kitted
most forks ran white power internal kits with external adj
if someone runs a set of simons they are period correct
if they can afford to buy them then its ok
i know were i can get a set of wp usd disc forks
but i wouldnt bother unless i was putting them on a pre 90
my standard kx500 forks work fine the bike won the state
pre 85 championship so they cant be that bad
pre 85 shocks yes you can run ohlins or white power
they were availiable then so no issue there
actually the rear shock is more important than forks
in that era ;)
there is also the problem of people putting modern internals
in these forks as well which is stretching it
or running mid eighties cartridge forks
which are heaps better than any pre85 forks
-
All the talk of changing the caliper area to suit a drum brake setup or finding out if White power had a set of forks avaliable for an '84 kx500 is irrelivent when these particular forks are stamped with a 1986 part number. Built in 1986, not pre '85 legal. Simple.
Take it to your next club and have some fun on it. ;)
-
These particular forks are stamped with a 1986 part number. Built in 1986, not pre '85 legal. Simple.
I guess this is where i was trying to get to. (Based on EVO550's reply)
"If the component was manafactured Post 31st December 1984 then it is not eligible to be used"
Take it to your next club and have some fun on it. ;)
Pretty much where i'll be with it. :)
-
G'day Bahnsy,whats right with it is it looks great and can't wait to see you line up next to Hoony at barabool and hopefully with its brother too!!!!!!!!!