Engine Eligibility question

[Hoony]

Brads on the money, its an XR200 why bother with such a land crab.

[evo550]

Nathan, your using pre 90 class components being used in the pre 85 class as an example, the question was on the evo class eligibility.
2012 M.O.M's page 167.
Acceptable Machines and components Evolution class.

18.5.6.1 Bikes will be OEM (original equipement manufacture).

18.5.6.2 Modifications converting later equipement to comply will not be allowed.

18.5.6.2 All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured:
              a) No linkage suspension.
              b) No disc brakes.
              c) air cooled motors.

Slakewell,
Those are the rules, interpret them how you will.

[TT5 Matt]

the xl185 had cdi ignitions

[Slakewell]

I used ignition from a postie bike on my XL pre 75 racer back in the 90's , I guess that dosent mean it was legal just no one cared.

[firko]

Methinks you blokes are putting way too much thought into this . This is how eligibility paranoia gets its hold on us, turning insignificant little sideshows into major dramas (see RM-B/C alloy swingarm debate elsewhere on the forum). I can't see a scrutineer giving a holy damn about how many shocks the donor XR200 motor had, just use it for Evo and I'm pretty positive nobody will give a shit.

[Nathan S]

Nathan, your using pre 90 class components being used in the pre 85 class as an example, the question was on the evo class eligibility.

You're right. I may have had a couple of beers last night, and the attention to detail may have not been all that good...


Still, the points I made are valid - just add a 1979/80 motor in pieces to your pile on the bench.
There may be some differences, but my understanding is that all 2-valve XR200 motors from 1979 to the very last of them are identical or very close to it.

I see this thread coming back to the idea of 2012- built "replica parts" being acceptable, but everyone thinking that 1990 built replica parts being dirty cheats... 

[evo550]

Methinks you blokes are putting way too much thought into this . This is how eligibility paranoia gets its hold on us, turning insignificant little sideshows into major dramas (see RM-B/C alloy swingarm debate elsewhere on the forum). I can't see a scrutineer giving a holy damn about how many shocks the donor XR200 motor had, just use it for Evo and I'm pretty positive nobody will give a shit.

Oh I don't know Firko, The question was on eligibility, so an appropriate answer had to be given. No, in my opinion.
If the question was "Would anyone give a shoot if....." then your angle would be on the money.

[firko]

You're right Evo but so many of these hypotheticals come up on the forum you'd think out sport was a secret society full of deceitful cheats perpetually trying to pull big swiftys over the scrutineers and their fellow racers. The truth is that our rule book maps it out pretty well for those who just want to build a bike to race. If it's not in the book, common sense should tell you if it's legit or not, and 99.9% of us use that common sense and build bikes within the set parameters. If the XR200 engines are all the same I doubt anyone but the engine number Nazis would know or care. Has anyone ever cared that a '76 XL350 motor  (fitted with a side port pre 75 head of course) was used in pre 75? No. Has anyone ever bothered to protest anyone using a 1976 Suzuki TS400 bottom end in their TM400? I doubt it, I can recall a champion Suzuki rider telling the scrutineer his bike had just such a motor and the scrutineer didn't even bat an eyelid. The 1972 RT2 bottom end in my pre 70 Cheney-Yamaha is quite legal purely by being a flow-on...and so on, there's plenty more examples out there. It'd be the same if you showed up with our hypothetical XR200 engine housed in a twin shock XL. I'm absolutely sure it'd be just fine

[evo550]

Maybe you're right Evo but so many of these hypotheticals come up on the forum you'd think out sport was a secret society full of deceitful cheats perpetually trying to pull big swiftys over the scrutineers and their fellow racers. The truth is that our rule book maps it out pretty well for those who just want to build a bike to race. If it's not in the book, common sense should tell you if it's legit or not, and 99.9% of us use that common sense and build bikes within the set parameters. If the XR200 engines are all the same I doubt anyone but the engine number Nazis would know or care. Has anyone ever cared that a '76 XL350 motor  (fitted with a side port pre 75 head of course) was used in pre 75? No. Has anyone ever bothered to protest anyone using a 1976 Suzuki TS400 bottom end in their TM400? I doubt it, I can recall a champion Suzuki rider telling the scrutineer his bike had just such a motor and the scrutineer didn't even bat an eyelid. The 1972 RT2 bottom end in my pre 70 Cheney-Yamaha is quite legal purely by being a flow-on...and so on, there's plenty more examples out there. It'd be the same if you showed up with our hypothetical XR200 engine housed in a twin shock XL. I'm absolutely sure it'd be just fine

Yep, 99.9% correct, now if you where to remove the "Maybe" that started your post, I would be 100% happy. 

[mustanggrahame]

Not to cause any problems and I'm sure it has been talked about before, but why is any RT (360)Yamaha pre 70 legal? I thought only the DT was made before 1970. Does a pre 70 Yam have to have a square swing arm?
I think the rules should become freer not more restrictive. Especially with trail bike based racers.
Cheers, Grahame

[firko]

Very early in the piece the RT1 was included as a flow on to the DT1. I know that sounds a bit bogus but it's never been a problem and it's pretty fair on the RT1 as it really wouldn't cut it as a pre 75 racer. Initially the DT1 had to have a 'square' swingarm but when the RT1 became legalised that rule became irrelevent as the RT1 has a round swingarm.

[oldfart]

  ......."Has anyone ever bothered to protest anyone using a 1976 Suzuki TS400  bottom end in their TM400?
answer is   NO  -  because it's an  acceptable flow on model as described.

[firko]

Insert Quote
  ......."Has anyone ever bothered to protest anyone using a 1976 Suzuki TS400
  bottom end in their TM400?
answer is   NO  -  because it's an  acceptable flow on model as described

That's my point Oldfart, although when the situation I described occured it wasn't considered a flow on.

[oldfart]

Point taken     wording was only changed in 2012 moms issue.