CR 250 Question

[090]

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

Poor taste.

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

Poor form.

So really only ("only"!) the motor is a problem, as I see it.

Poor form.
Trivialising the era by slapping late model parts on a an era specific class is my beef. No need to quote rules.
Leads to more of this sort of shit.
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170584339100&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fshop.ebay.com.au%3A80%2F%3F_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dp3984.m570.l1313%26_nkw%3D170584339100%26_sacat%3DSee-All-Categories%26_fvi%3D1&_rdc=1

[motomaniac]

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

Poor taste.

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

Poor form.

So really only ("only"!) the motor is a problem, as I see it.

Poor form.
Trivialising the era by slapping late model parts on a an era specific class is my beef. No need to quote rules.

You are beating you head against a brickwall Brad.

[firko]

If the rulebook mapped out the eligibility requirements in a forthright and well researched manner, these tiresome threads wouldn't occur. There are too many grey areas open to whatever intepretation you want to give them. This thread and it's brothers has been going on for 20 years. Let's get rid of the grey areas.

[Nathan S]

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

Poor taste.

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

Poor form.

So really only ("only"!) the motor is a problem, as I see it.

Poor form.
Trivialising the era by slapping late model parts on a an era specific class is my beef. No need to quote rules.
Leads to more of this sort of shit.
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170584339100&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fshop.ebay.com.au%3A80%2F%3F_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dp3984.m570.l1313%26_nkw%3D170584339100%26_sacat%3DSee-All-Categories%26_fvi%3D1&_rdc=1

So why labor on the shock?

WRT the cosmetics, I guess I was trying to point out that 'staying pure' might not being doing the sport any favours. If we were to kick out people with pre-75 bikes that had later style mudguards, would it be a step forward or a step backwards for the sport? Personally, I'm all for getting bikes out there competing, even if they don't look 100% era correct (mechanicals are another issue).

Is an 85 model tank on an 84 CR250 any different to a late mode lguard on a pre-75 bike? Why/why not?

Believe it or not, I mostly agree with your point of view on this - but the discussion needs to be about how the rules should be changed, not how the rules are.

[090]

So why labor on the shock?

I wasn't. with others pointing out it wouldn't fit, it went awol. That's why I went back to our first two posts.

Believe it or not, I mostly agree with your point of view on this - but the discussion needs to be about how the rules should be changed, not how the rules are.

I know you do yet you seem to want to debate everything.

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

So really only ("only"!) the motor is a problem, as I see it.

And you know there is nothing positive in these two statements of yours. I will go further to say its detrimental.

[Nathan S]

Are you trying to out-stubbon me!? Good work son - much respect for trying, no matter how futile your efforts. 

OK look, here's the deal:
VMX247 asked me the exact same question a few weeks back. Apparently some guy in WA bought a CR250RF in the mistaken belief that it would be eligible for pre-85 racing. I did some research on 84 vs 85 and concluded pretty much what Shane said: Not completely different bikes, but no cigar either.
Remember than in WA, the term "Pre-90" is even dirtier than it is here in NSW - the bike is useless to the bloke if it can't race pre-85.

The way I saw it, if the bike's owner could bring the engine back to a 1984 engine, it should be close enough for club-level pre-85 racing - the important performance bits would be the same/close enough.
When this thread sprung up, I assumed that it was prompted by the same bloke (I still don't know if I'm right or wrong, BTW). I'd had some time to think about the bloke's predicament and about what I believe is actually good for the sport of VMX.
Given the current health of the sport, I honestly believe that a bike with no performance advantage and that's fundamentally of the same era should be allowed to race among the kosher pre-85 bikes, which lead to my first contribution to this thread.
The alternative is to tell the guy with his nice RF to f$ck off and almost certainly risk losing him to the world of VMX.

You know the rest of the story.

[GMC]

Given the current health of the sport, I honestly believe that a bike with no performance advantage and that's fundamentally of the same era should be allowed to race among the kosher pre-85 bikes,

The alternative is to tell the guy with his nice RF to f$ck off and almost certainly risk losing him to the world of VMX.

At a National level meeting - No

At a local club level meeting, well thats something to take up with your local club.

Its a bummer for the guy to buy the wrong bike but he should have done his homework first, which isn't that hard.

[090]

Tell him to f@#k off ...nicely.
You let one guy in,you have to let them all in. His mistake, his problem. You do the right thing and so do I.So should he.
THE END I just found this gizmo and am having fun.Nathan the mass-debater 

[Nathan S]

Its a bummer for the guy to buy the wrong bike but he should have done his homework first, ....

Which is almost exactly what I said.



Can't recall if I've posted this, but the other part of my thought process relates to a bloke who has a 100% carry-over 1985 model Vinduro bike:
Despite the general desire to keep vinduros free of this sort of pettiness that's plagued VMX, there's a movement to make Vinduros strictly about 1984 and earlier models, leaving this bloke without a chance to ride a very nice and uncommon bike.
The stupid thing is that only the compliance plate gives it away as an '85 model. To my mind he should remove the compliance plate for events, or simply claim that its an 84 model that had a damaged frame and the frame was replaced with an identical 85 model one....

PS: I still love you Brad, mostly for you man-boobs.

[090]

[GMC]

Can't recall if I've posted this, but the other part of my thought process relates to a bloke who has a 100% carry-over 1985 model Vinduro bike:
Despite the general desire to keep vinduros free of this sort of pettiness that's plagued VMX, there's a movement to make Vinduros strictly about 1984 and earlier models, leaving this bloke without a chance to ride a very nice and uncommon bike.

I once put forward the notion that Vinduros should be Pre 87 or 88
Based on the fact that 85 doesn’t really mean anything in the Enduro bike development, and because Enduro bikes, mainly the Japs, were a year or 2 behind MX development.
It seems most disagreed with me.

[Nathan S]

GMC, The problem with making sense is that everyone feels obliged to ignore it, because it wasn't their idea.

Not that I'd know.

[VMX247]

I'm going with 18.7.14.2,18.7.14.3 and 18.7.14.4 its safer and we worked out how to make it bigger too!!  
cheers S&A WA

[motomaniac]

I'm going with 18.7.14.2,18.7.14.3 and 18.7.14.4 its safer and we worked out how to make it bigger too!!  
cheers S&A WA

Thats brilliant Allison! One problem  I do see though is it would need to be translated for those who don't understand English.

[Rossvickicampbell]

Nathan/Brad - interesting - and picking up on GMC's comments - we also (pre 85 club WA) had a guy who bought himself some RF (watercooled) CR500s then asked to join the club - as you said if you bend the rules for one they will keep coming.