Montesa VR 250 Wheelsmith

[firko]

Here's an example of a pre '75 bike with upgraded suspension making it eligible for pre '78. This is the type of bike that proliferated in the post 1975 era when people updated their short travel bikes to keep up with the long travel technology. These are the type of mods I was trying to describe as being quite common over on the rule update thread but I was firmly told that they were a minor contribution to the sport. I lived in California and I reckon that half of the fields composed of bikes like this up to about 1977. I know that it was a similar story here in NSW too. But maybe I'm just a silly old pensioner who's lost his memory? To correct the seller below....Wheelsmith became a Montesa dealer long after they started and sold them along side Maicos circa 1974 and later. I remember my hybrid VB 360 was very similar to this bike with Maico style rear end, Curnutt shocks and Marzocci forks and it may have been modded by Wheellsmith.
                                                                             
FOR SALE
Ad # 3230403 February 12, 2014
 
1974 Montesa VR 250 Wheel Smith was raced by a guy named Doug Baker he was sponcered by Wheel smith and Curnutt Shocks has all the period race mods and runs great I rode it yesterday Wheel Smith was a Montesa dealer before he got into Maicos he did all the mods to it and this guy was also sponcered by Curnutt shocks has a set of 15 inchers on it along with a Trick Marzocci front end alloy triples and Air forks don't let this piece of history get away asking $2,400 or best offer or will take a part trade along with some cash I like CZ's or other bikes also....Cash Check US postal money order or money wire...........

     Rick Browne
Camarillo, CA
Phone: 1 805 389-3229 | Email
Registered Since 6/25/2006 | 1121 Posts
Accepts: Cash, Check, Money Order

 

[g465b]

the wheelsmith bike looks sort of awkward,lost the good looks of the original,those guys knew their shit i'm sure it worked well


[/URL][/img]

[VMX Andrew]

Im now a big fan of the Harley bars...
Gotta have em 

[Rossvickicampbell]

Firko - I agree - in our minbike club - the number of kids who couldn't afford to go to and RM 80 or a YZC and instead laydown the shocks etc on their YZB or XR 75 - was all the rage at the time.

[davidmc]

My thoughts also, just looks akward in that photo, may have worked?, the proof is always in the pudding!

[FourstrokeForever]

I remember plenty of bikes from 1974 til 1978 having modified suspension to keep up with longer travel machines. It was a cheaper option than buying a new bike that essentially had the same motor as the models before.

Some how the rear of the VR looks too high, but who knows, it could work well.

[firko]

According to the other thread, bikes like this hardly existed. I maintain that they were the majority in '75-76 and still a lot racing in '77. We modified a '74 Husky for a mate using '76 Maico forks and big long (16"? ) S&W Stroker shocks and it was a surprisingly good bike to ride. That Montesa looks right to me, perhaps a tad tall but I think the extra height might change the steering head angle to counteract the leading axle forks.

[Rossvickicampbell]

Firko - what a lot of the guys forget is that the bikes did get taller and taller and longer and longer shocks and travel - yes they might of then started going back down again from extremes (ala Bob Hannah) but they weren't that bad and yes it was done.

[FourstrokeForever]

According to the other thread, bikes like this hardly existed. I maintain that they were the majority in '75-76 and still a lot racing in '77. We modified a '74 Husky for a mate using '76 Maico forks and big long (16"? ) S&W Stroker shocks and it was a surprisingly good bike to ride. That Montesa looks right to me, perhaps a tad tall but I think the extra height might change the steering head angle to counteract the leading axle forks.

The bloke that kept on telling us that modified suspension bikes were very rare back in the 70's would argue about the colour of trees IMO.
Not all modified  bikes worked so great, but I reckon most would of if the front was matched to the back.

[Husky500evo]

According to the other thread, bikes like this hardly existed. I maintain that they were the majority in '75-76 and still a lot racing in '77. We modified a '74 Husky for a mate using '76 Maico forks and big long (16"? ) S&W Stroker shocks and it was a surprisingly good bike to ride. That Montesa looks right to me, perhaps a tad tall but I think the extra height might change the steering head angle to counteract the leading axle forks.

The bloke that kept on telling us that modified suspension bikes were very rare back in the 70's would argue about the colour of trees IMO.
Not all modified  bikes worked so great, but I reckon most would of if the front was matched to the back.

There is a bloke on another thread that claims his view on the rules is shared by 99% of the members of this forum  . I don't know how he comes up with this figure. I have to admit that I am one of the supposed 1 %  that don't agree with him, but I have learnt to try and not enter into discussions about rules on this forum. I don't think that you are ever going to get a consensus when you are dealing with older people that are stubborn and want to pedantically argue about even the most minor detail, without ever listening to any other points of view.       

[Slakewell]

When I grew up 125's were the craze in 76/77. There was an old engineering shop and one of the guys who worked there owned tricked up CR's and a hot rodded MT 125 that was his daily commute. This guy modified my YZ for me and there was always older CR 125 getting modified there. The local club was full of his modified cr's

[supersenior 50]

Hi husky500, I am a stubborn old(er) bastard but you are dead right in questioning the 99% comment. On the basis of calls I've been getting I'd guess it's doubtfull it's even 50%.
I don't understand the furore all this has kicked up.Combining the relevant threads on this subject ( two of which have hit the dungeon) we are now approachin 40 pages.
To me it seems simple, put long travel on a pre75 bike, no mystery it's Pre78 under our rules. Put modified later components on an Evo bike and it becomes Pre85 etc etc.
Every time before a Nats this forum goes ape about something. This year its mainly about Evo rules. Evolution has been going for at least 10 years, and been included in about 8 Nats - no protests or formal submissions for change in all that time.
Now this puts unnecessary pressure on officials, mostly volunteers, and puts the cloud of controversy over the event 8 weeks out.
Anyway it's my birthday that weekend so be nice everyone

[Husky500evo]

Hi husky500, I am a stubborn old(er) bastard but you are dead right in questioning the 99% comment. On the basis of calls I've been getting I'd guess it's doubtfull it's even 50%.
I don't understand the furore all this has kicked up.Combining the relevant threads on this subject ( two of which have hit the dungeon) we are now approachin 40 pages.

Hi Col, I have had a few phone conversations with you and although you say that you are a stubborn old bastard, I think that your tenacity has done great things for our sport. I admire you for sticking to your guns and getting your proposal to have the Nats split into classic and post classic, through all the hurdles. I wouldn't have had the patience for that.
      I probably don't totally agree with you on all things though. I think that because the Evo class rules are different to other classes, in that they revolve around a technology based formula rather than a year cut off, it causes people to have trouble grasping the concept. I can't really see any advantage to be gained in using any front end that originally came from a manufacturer as a drum brake front end. The wording about fitting later model components doesn't really apply, as there is no year cut off in the Evo rules.

[supersenior 50]

Thanks evo. I was referring to the clause in Evo rules stating that modification of later components to comply will not be allowed. This seems to be the nub of most of the controversy re these Nats, yet doesnt appear to me anything but clear cut. The point is that if people dont agree with that rule are trying to re invent it or don't agree with it, now is not the time to be agitating about it. Put in a submission after these Nats for next year. But, any such submissions need to be very carefully thought out. It is so easy to change one rule and open up a whole new can of worms.
Sorry to sort of hi-jack the Ebay thread.

[FourstrokeForever]

Thanks evo. I was referring to the clause in Evo rules stating that modification of later components to comply will not be allowed. This seems to be the nub of most of the controversy re these Nats, yet doesnt appear to me anything but clear cut. The point is that if people dont agree with that rule are trying to re invent it or don't agree with it, now is not the time to be agitating about it. Put in a submission after these Nats for next year. But, any such submissions need to be very carefully thought out. It is so easy to change one rule and open up a whole new can of worms.
Sorry to sort of hi-jack the Ebay thread.

I'm sorry to hi-jack the thread as well. I had no intention of doing so but after reading Cols post, well, my fingers got the better of me. Col, there was no controversy regarding Evo rules for this years PCVMX until Dave Tanner hit everyone with his interpretation of the rules for Evo for 2014. Then the proverbial hit the fan. Not with all, but a very noisy and arrogant minority. Unfortunately some wanker had the gall to ring Dave while on holidays and abuse him for his interpretation of Evo rules. No doubt Dave thought he was giving the majority of punters what they wanted. The intention of the rule re-write (as per another thread) was always meant to be for the not so distant future. It just so happened that a a very select few chose to use that forum as an excuse to try and ridicule Dave for his decisions regarding this years PCMX Nats. Shame on them I say. Nearly all are aware that you submit rule changes when you see a drama in pre65 and pre70 and to possibly make it easier for bikes to be eligible. Why not give the later era guys a turn at writing their rules as well? Afterall, the sport relies on the future classes, and I personally think that Nathan S and those that contributed to the rule re-write have the sports best interests at heart.