CR 250 Question

[head]

I can see where Nathen is coming from with his thoughts on the shcck issue. If I go out and buy a Ohlins,YSS or Works Performance shock. It will be far better than the 1984 shock. Piston and valving will be way better. It will be better than what you could buy in 1984. Shocks are getting fitted with Gold valves or modern pistons and shim stacks. So if a shock can be sourced from a newer model and fitted without modification to the bike, ie same linkage and mounting points it is no different to buying a new shock. You can not buy a period shock, they are all better now than they were then. I personally do not have a problem with this. What you have to understand is the new shock is far better than they were in 1984. But this is ok. Old shocks can be modified to todays standards with Gold Valves and the like and it is to hard to police. So let it be, it makes the bikes safer anyway.

[211kawasaki]

The shock is never the question when deternination of eligibility is made so long as its the same length and externally compatible with the period; I treat a shock like you might treat a set of tyres, if its 25 years old its probably stuffed.

That said I do consider the major components of a machine the areas that will determine eligible status, the engine, the wheels and brakes, frame and forks etc, these must be of the period and in the case of pre 85 be the available items of the 1984 model year, yes there will be specials and remanufactured / replica parts - all looked at case by case.

If the bike has the 85 engine its not in the pre 85 race, if the engine is an exact follow on then it is (TM250L / M engine is a good example of a follow on engine). In the Honda's case its not a follow on.


211

[BAHNZY]

In 2009 I suggested the following changes to the 2010 GCR's.

18.7.15.1  -  (NEW RULE)
A Pre 85 machine will be defined as a machine that was originally equipped with;
a) Linkage rear suspension system.
b) Rear drum brake equipped.

18.7.15.2 Pre 1985 Eligibility - (CURRENT GCR)
Acceptable machines for pre 1985 are machines built up to and including the 1984 models. The only exception to this GCR is where the model remains unaltered after this date. The onus of proof of eligibility shall rest wholly on the rider or entrant of this machine.
18.7.15.2 Pre 1985 Eligibility - (SUGGESTED CHANGE)
Acceptable machines for pre 1985 are machines built up to and including the 1984 models. Machines and/or their components built or complianced in 1984 and sold designated as 1985 models are excluded. The only exception to this GCR is where the model remains unaltered after this date. The onus of proof of eligibility shall rest wholly on the rider or entrant of the machine.

18.7.14.3 - (CURRENT GCR)
Modifications using later equipment are not allowed
18.7.14.3 - (SUGGESTED CHANGE)
Modifications using later equipment components from machines other than listed in 18.7.15.1 & 18.7.15.2 are not allowed.

18.7.14.4 - (CURRENT GCR)
All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured.
18.7.14.4 - (SUGGESTED CHANGE)
All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured up to 31st December 1984

Whilst they could be massaged a bit more given that it is now 2 years on the basic intent remains intact. Not wanting to offend 211 Kawasaki, but the points that you make are the exact problems that SCB’s and State based clubs like Heaven & VIPER face when it comes to the localised eligibility issues.
To say that you treat a shock like a set of tyres and that under yours or MA’s interpretation that a shock wouldn’t fall into the same category as a fork set or wheel leaves me baffled. To say that remanufactured & replica parts will be looked at case by case says that the GCR’s are open to interpretation. On an as presented basis on race day, decisions won’t be consistent race to race, year on year as different stewards will be in attendance.

[BAHNZY]

Seems common sense has left this thread.
Shocks are a consumable not a core component.

To say, or have printed in the GCR's that a linkage type suspension shock absorber is consumable part and not a core component needs to be adressed. This maybe the case for the short travel bikes up to the Pre78, but saying that a 1984 KX, RM etc shock is a consumable is not in line with todays thinking.

[Nathan S]

I like the direction you're headed, Bahnzy, but the problem is still that we talk about "machines" without reference to the idea that a machine is simply a bundle of parts.

Until we have a definite list of "major components" to define the bits that cannot be freely changed, we're pissing in the wind.

[090]

Period shocks or replacement new ones to suit that era.

You've made that up - its not in the rules, or even implied in the pre-85 rules.


FWIW, I offered some private advice on the 84 vs 85 CR250 thing, and tried to hose down the notion that the '85 model was a carry-over bike. I'm guessing the bike's owner didn't like the answer and has asked for official confirmation through the Commission.

Seems you are blowing me off for not quoting rules. The way that the rules are meant to be read for earlier classes are that they have to be period items or new replacement that conform to the era. You know the rules as do I. Splitting hairs is just arguing for the sake of it. I am saying (again) to use the same train of thought as the early classes and put on era correct parts. It's alot harder as the basics are the same now as they were in the mid eighties. To preserve eras and the bikes, this train of thought needs to be adopted. I will say AGAIN that saying it's okay to miss match parts through the eras simply because it fits or it was lying in the shed or what ever is counter productive IMO.

[GMC]

Its been a great way to start the year, floods, bushfires, cyclone warnings and now an eligibility debate.

This thread started out as a CR question but obviously the issue is generic to all era’s.

Pre 85 single shocks may have a longer shelf life than the early twinshocks but they still wear out.
Aftermarket shocks from the day were available but they are rare and expensive, as had been said if the shock can be made to fit it’s not going to be any more advanced than a modern replica.

78 model shocks had some technological advantages over 74 shocks but an 85 shock has nothing over a 84 shock.
Do we really need to be splitting hairs?

Would you really be happy about protesting someone because they had fitted a YZ-E shock into their YZ-D?
Or RM-C shocks onto an RM-B?

One major flaw in the rules is that Major components isn’t listed.
All major components should be of the era.

In my opinion major parts should be…
Frame
Swingarm
Hubs
Forks
Engine cases
Head & barrel
Carby

Debatable major parts would be…
Triple clamps
Shock linkages

[BAHNZY]

Brad,
I (personally) think that the biggest issue is mindset.
For what ever reason the EVO & Pre85 GCR's were written as an evolution (pardon the pun) of the GCR's written for Pre60 to Pre78 classes rather than a stand alone class structure. I'm not having a snipe at the people that did it, but it’s the situation that came about when they were written.
A result of this is that we tend to think & behave towards EVO & Pre85 in the manner that we conduct ourselves in the Pre60 to Pre78 environment.

[BAHNZY]

In my opinion major parts should be…
Frame
Swingarm
Hubs
Forks
Engine cases
Head & barrel
Carby

Debatable major parts would be…
Triple clamps
Shock linkages

Geoff,
What i struggle to understand is why a fork is considered a major component yet a linkage type shock is not.

[GMC]

The fork defines a bikes looks, the shock is mostly hidden.

Shocks wear out internally more than forks

Forks can be modified internally same as shocks

I don’t see that later shocks as being that much different to pre85 shocks

I think the linkage may be considered major component but as I said, it is worthy of debate

[Nathan S]

Geoff,
What i struggle to understand is why a fork is considered a major component yet a linkage type shock is not.

I'd say there's two main reasons:
1. The VMX rules have always considered shocks to be consumables (for better or for worse).
2. Shocks wear out more readily than forks do.

Seems you are blowing me off for not quoting rules.

Kind of - if you want the rules changed then ask for the rules to be changed. But if you tell us that the rules mean something different to what they say, then I'll continue to disagree with you.

I still think there's a big flaw in your logic on the shock issue anyhow. Its impossible and illogical to enforce "no newer production shocks" while accepting brand new aftermarket shocks.
Any performance benefit that a later model production shock will offer, can easily be surpassed by a new shock from Walter. The new shock will undoubtedly be shinier and have more adjustment too.
If that's acceptable, then how can you argue that a 1986 model shock is not?

(-: What GMC said).

[JohnnyO]

Interesting but i don't think pre '85 will ever get this picky at an actual race meeting. So much after market stuff was available for them.. shocks, linkages, forks, triple clamps, pipes etc.
Hopefully common sense will prevail.

[090]

I believe that the 85 seat/tank and side covers go straight on to the '84 bike (and visa versa).

I originally posted a response to this comment . To say its okay to throw a heap of 85 (mainly cosmetic) parts at an 84 model bike is counter productive even though it isn't illegal by the rules. It makes a mockery of pre 85 era racing. Why not ( being ridiculous now)use a 2001 cr500 roller and put an 84 cr500 and race pre 85 or pre 90. Legal for pre 90, up for discussion in pre 85. Stick my 97 Vertemati 50mm conventionals in and its good to go for pre 85. Talk like that can't be good for the later classes.
The best thing I can say about how I feel is I don't want to look at a beloved 85 cr500 and it looks nothing like it should. Shit that wrecks the bike but is 'within the rules'.

Its impossible and illogical to enforce "no newer production shocks" while accepting brand new aftermarket shocks.
Any performance benefit that a later model production shock will offer, can easily be surpassed by a new shock from Walter. The new shock will undoubtedly be shinier and have more adjustment too.
If that's acceptable, then how can you argue that a 1986 model shock is not?

Easy as the same can be said for pre 75, pre 78 etc. You can use the latest from Ohlins on your pre 75 but you can't put a set of oem shocks off an rm125b.
And for what it's worth,mid eighties parts are rebuild-able and if they are worn out there will be a load of spares out there in ebay land.

[Lozza]

With defined major and minor components the newest major component (ie frame, swing arm ,hubs,forks engine cases etc) the machine is deemed to be that era.If you have a 2001 frame the bike is deemed to be a 2001 bike therefore ineligable. But that example the bike would not be issued with a log book.
All this is stopped dead in it's tracks with a log book. I don't think log books are necessary for club meetings but a must for National titles.
Items like triples and linkages would not be worth worrying over. Would be easy enough to copy a late model aftermarket linkage and make it look old.

[Nathan S]

Easy as the same can be said for pre 75, pre 78 etc. You can use the latest from Ohlins on your pre 75 but you can't put a set of oem shocks off an rm125b.

There's a specific rule that prohibits remote resevoirs on pre-75 bikes. That's the reason a pair of RM-B shocks aren't allowed on a pre-75 bike (assuming the wheel travel is under 4").
The age of the shocks is completely irrelevant, despite what you might think.

Do you think that guys running modern style guards on their pre-75 bikes are a problem for the sport?