Honda and Suzuki TLS front drum brakes in Evo?

[Nathan S]

Question relates to what you think the rules should be, not what the rules currently are.

Some Evo-legal Yamahas and Husqvarnas came with Twin Leading Shoe front drum brakes.

No Evo Hondas or Suzukis came with TLS front brakes.
You can legally fit a Yamaha or Husky front end to these bikes, but some people prefer not to fit parts from other brands, and would prefer to use later Honda or Suzuki parts on their Evo bikes.

One argument says "it's still got drum brakes, so it's still Evo legal".
The other argument says "that drum brake is from a non-Evo bike, so it isn't legal".

Should the later TLS brakes be allowed, or not allowed?
What about the matching forks from the later bike?
You don't need to justify your opinion, just let me know what it is.

Suzuki RMs got a twin-leading shoe front drum brake in 1983.
Honda CRs (And some XRs?) got a TLS brake from 1981.
KTMs got TLS front brakes in 1984.

[suzuki59]

Slight correction required Nathan:
Suzuki went twin leading front on the 1983 RM 250 and 500.

[09.0]

Honda was 81 on the 450 ( and probably 250) to be pedantic. I put yz forks on my Maico. I just played within the rules as they stand. I had to buy those. I did have an 82 cr front end already.
That's where the rules fall down, when someone wants to bend them to suit themselves for eg what they have in the shed.

[Slakewell]

Nathan are you trying to start threads regarding eligibility so you have something to do?
Honda was 82
Husky was 83
KTM was 84

IMO the cut off for EVO should be 81 but that sure as heck upsets allot of Husky guys. 

[Nathan S]

It's one of the issues that bubbles away, but hasn't been done to death - thought it would be good to see what people's opinions are, without opinions entrenched by previous forum debates.

It is a topic I have no opinion on (yes, seriously).

Nobody brave enough to venture an opinion?

Dates in the first post changed - thanks for the info.

[Ted]

Why can't you have hydraulically assisted brakes of your own creation. Even add a booster.They were around. The rule simply says No Disk Brakes.

[topari]

IMO if the modification is of the type which would have been doable during that era, then a TLS setup should be okay.  So a TLS from an 82 Honda should be okay on a 79 IT400F , but a 280mm twin pot disk from a 2000 TM model is not okay. Further if your fabrication skills allow you to modify the standard setup say be converting the front and rear to TLS, then this is also okay. However when it comes to ignition systems I am not too sure.  If a modern digital setup greatly improves the bikes rideability, then I'd install such a system.

[09.0]

Honda was 82

Um, 81.

[Davey Crocket]

Where did the ign system come from?...I thought is was about the brakes?...my take on the brakes....no you shouldn't be able to put the Suk or Honda forks/brake on......I don't recall it back in the day.....shit, once single shock linkage bikes arrived the others where obsolete over night. Nobody was putting 83 model Suzuki parts on a 80 model.

[head]

Only the parts from an evo bike should be used. So no Suzuki or Honda TLS brakes and definately not matching forks. I am with Brad on this I bought the right parts when I had the non legal parts in the shed. Allow one thing in, then where does it stop. My opinion.

[JohnnyO]

Only the parts from an evo bike should be used. So no Suzuki or Honda TLS brakes and definately not matching forks. I am with Brad on this I bought the right parts when I had the non legal parts in the shed. Allow one thing in, then where does it stop. My opinion.

Yes exactly, build it within the rules the right parts are easy to get no excuses.

[bishboy]

On a practicality basis I dont have any real issue on the use of drum brakes and associated forks (maybe exclue USD if any exist) if the rules were changed to allow, I think it is not would improve the performance much and allow more choice/availability and allow bikes to be kept as all one brand. 

The issue arises if we then say any air cooled engine is allowed, then we start down the path of bikes similar to those overseas, ie; RM500 engined RM400, KX500 engined KX250A5 etc.  But as this would result in a significant performance gain, it could easily be written into the rules that only engines from twin shock/non linkage bikes could be used. I wouldn't even have a great issue with a disc braked, air cooled, twin shock bike (are there any?) being made evo legal with a drum brake front end. 

I suppose the problem arises when you give a little bit of latitude in the rules, people will stretch that to breaking point.  This could be overcome with rewritten very specific rules, but then you don't want to turn the rules into something resembling legislation that you have to be a QC to comprehend 

[smed]

What is everyone using regarding triple clamps when converting to the Yam 43mm DLS front end,I noticed the Yam ones have quite swept back bar mounts compared to my CR250RZ & was concerned the bars would end up in my lap ,Billet aftermarket?

[JohnnyO]

88 KX and 82/83 CR 43mm triples have a more forward bar position.