Author Topic: 79 CR250 Front End Conversion  (Read 72523 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JohnnyO

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4658
  • Qld
    • View Profile
Re: 79 CR250 Front End Conversion
« Reply #75 on: July 04, 2014, 07:00:00 pm »
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/301229058534?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649

check this one out! Cool!
I think that's Bruce Magoo's old bike that Shane owned for a while.
That's a KLP swingarm not Fox like the seller thinks..

Offline KTM47

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
    • View Profile
Re: 79 CR250 Front End Conversion
« Reply #76 on: July 04, 2014, 07:48:51 pm »
Kevin were the Evo rules not in the rulebook prior to 2004?
I started racing Evo in the Thumper Nats in '96 with Rick Doughty's US rules.

John

At present I have only checked back to the 2004 rule book.  In this book (2004 MOMS) the rules for the EVO classes are in BOLD print.  This is what is done to indicate a new or changed rule.  If a rule is changed it is done using strike out So using that I believe the rules for EVO have only been in the MA rule book since 2004.

Also yes the class was run at the Thumper Nats from the mid nineties and we ran it for a year in the Shell Advance/Sunshine State MX series, before I invented the ThunderX series.  I even remember one time I had a question about the eligibility of a bike.  So I emailed Rick Doughty.  I considered him the Father of the class (and still do).  Rick replied to my email confirming as I thought the bike wasn't eligible.

Anyway as you can see the class doesn't really belong to MA, it was being run for at least ten or more years before MA decided to recognise the class.

Also for the record Rick is a Maico man.

Kevin
MAICOS RULE DESPITE THE FOOLS

1999 KTM 200, 1976/77 KTM 400,1981 Maico 490

Offline Graham

  • A-Grade
  • ****
  • Posts: 309
  • Fast TT meets Drunks Hill
    • View Profile
Re: 79 CR250 Front End Conversion
« Reply #77 on: July 04, 2014, 08:09:07 pm »
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/301229058534?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649

check this one out! Cool!


OMG its got uprated later model shocks that weren't available in 1979, does that mean we should ban this bike to,or is it only the forks we're worried about, maybe that frame colour ant legal either :o
Gosh its a shame a slow 4 stroke trail bike can go so Fast !!

Offline KTM47

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
    • View Profile
Re: 79 CR250 Front End Conversion
« Reply #78 on: July 04, 2014, 08:21:33 pm »
No IMO the shocks are fine.  Only the forks and possibly the swingarm are questionable.  Also the plate colour doesn't comply.

And yes I know you are being sarcastic, but I'm not.
MAICOS RULE DESPITE THE FOOLS

1999 KTM 200, 1976/77 KTM 400,1981 Maico 490

Offline Shane W

  • Novice
  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: 79 CR250 Front End Conversion
« Reply #79 on: July 05, 2014, 06:06:01 am »
No John that is not the bike I had. Bruce had done one (completed) before he started the one I bought of Rob. This one has different shocks, foot pegs and wheel rims (the bike I had, had silver rims). Is very close in appearance.

I do not recall seeing this bike in Queensland. I did not go to CD this year so could not tell if it was there.

I am with Kevin about the swing arm, I do not know if it is a direct copy of an arm from the day (and in my view it would have to be) but you maybe able to answer this.

This is a good bench mark to look at though as it is a well presented bike that to most people would be Evo legal (and bar the swing arm and no colour back rounds would be under current rules) and does not take away from the general look of a standard 79 CR and evo bikes in general as others are concerned about. The forks on this bike also are 82 480 or 83 250 as the 83 480 had the rubber mounted handle bars that would make them (again in my eye) not legal as they differ from the standard top clamp.

As TBM said in an earlier post the forks give it no technical advantage over the H model Yamaha forks.

Shane



« Last Edit: July 05, 2014, 06:23:20 am by Shane W »

Offline Graham

  • A-Grade
  • ****
  • Posts: 309
  • Fast TT meets Drunks Hill
    • View Profile
Re: 79 CR250 Front End Conversion
« Reply #80 on: July 05, 2014, 07:48:02 am »
No IMO the shocks are fine.  Only the forks and possibly the swingarm are questionable.  Also the plate colour doesn't comply.

And yes I know you are being sarcastic, but I'm not.

Soo shocks that are brand new made in 2014 are fine but god help you if you use a conventional set of forks that may be a couple of years newer than stock.

How does that work.      Let it go.
Gosh its a shame a slow 4 stroke trail bike can go so Fast !!

Offline Ted

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2800
    • View Profile
Re: 79 CR250 Front End Conversion
« Reply #81 on: July 05, 2014, 08:04:22 am »
While that Honda may appear to be legal, it is not with them forks fitted. You claim they are only put on for aesthetics and not a technical advantage. Bullshit. While they may not offer an advantage over a Yamaha 43mm fork they are streets ahead of the legal forks that the bike was manufactured ( OEM ) with.
 
The bike below also has 43mm forks. This bike is completely legal because the forks are off a air cooled, drum braked, non linkage bike.

This whole fork bullshit is being generated by some guys who just plainly bought the wrong bike for the class and are trying to play catch up by converting later model equipment. Nothing more. Nothing less




81 YZ 465 H   77 RM 125 B

Offline bigk

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2655
  • Kangaroo Flat Victoria
    • View Profile
Re: 79 CR250 Front End Conversion
« Reply #82 on: July 05, 2014, 08:09:26 am »
There it is in a nutshell. Yep, you can use shocks built yesterday with modern components & 60 clicks of rebound & compression adjustment but you can't use a 30+ year old set of forks from a bike that was produced with a linkage rear end. Makes no sense in the real world, but I guess this isn't the real world. Shocks are classed as consumables, but forks aren't coz they don't wear out apparently.
K

Offline Shane W

  • Novice
  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: 79 CR250 Front End Conversion
« Reply #83 on: July 05, 2014, 08:30:55 am »
While that Honda may appear to be legal, it is not with them forks fitted. You claim they are only put on for aesthetics and not a technical advantage. Bullshit. While they may not offer an advantage over a Yamaha 43mm fork they are streets ahead of the legal forks that the bike was manufactured ( OEM ) with.
 
The bike below also has 43mm forks. This bike is completely legal because the forks are off a air cooled, drum braked, non linkage bike.

This whole fork bullshit is being generated by some guys who just plainly bought the wrong bike for the class and are trying to play catch up by converting later model equipment. Nothing more. Nothing less






Ted I have got to say it you are one of the people that just don't get it and never will.



Gee I also run an 82 front fender Should I be strung up for that as well???

« Last Edit: July 05, 2014, 08:38:12 am by Shane W »

Offline Ted

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2800
    • View Profile
Re: 79 CR250 Front End Conversion
« Reply #84 on: July 05, 2014, 09:04:44 am »
There it is in a nutshell. Yep, you can use shocks built yesterday with modern components & 60 clicks of rebound & compression adjustment but you can't use a 30+ year old set of forks from a bike that was produced with a linkage rear end. Makes no sense in the real world, but I guess this isn't the real world. Shocks are classed as consumables, but forks aren't coz they don't wear out apparently.
K

That is a ridiculous response.

So the guy with a Pre 65 can use a modern fork because his era fork is hard to find or expensive.

Shane,
           I get it and believe me I'm not the only one.

 Do you care to mention on here who told you your Pre 85 forks are legal and exactly what official position he held when he told you?

81 YZ 465 H   77 RM 125 B

Offline JohnnyO

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4658
  • Qld
    • View Profile
Re: 79 CR250 Front End Conversion
« Reply #85 on: July 05, 2014, 10:13:50 am »


Shane,
           I get it and believe me I'm not the only one.

 Do you care to mention on here who told you your Pre 85 forks are legal and exactly what official position he held when he told you?
Ted my Evo bikes went through scrutineering at many major meetings from 1996-2013 with 1983 43mm forks in them and no one ever said anything about them and the same goes for several other riders and Dave Tanner has said all along that they are LEGAL and he wrote the farkin rules so who's in the wrong here?!!
As for people on here calling others cheats for using said forks that have always passed scrutineering, Pull Your Heads In!
I'm sick of this BULLSHIT on here from all the know it alls, it's not solving anything!!

Offline GMC

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3693
  • Broadford, Vic
    • View Profile
Re: 79 CR250 Front End Conversion
« Reply #86 on: July 05, 2014, 10:28:21 am »
So if you can use a fork from a non Evo bike where is the line drawn as to what fork can be used?
And how is it written in the rule book to determine the cut off point.
 
G.M.C.  Bringing the past into the future

Shock horror, its here at last...
www.geoffmorrisconcepts.com

For the latest in GMC news...
http://www.geoffmorrisconcepts.com/8/news/

Offline Tahitian_Red

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 1109
  • Mugen ME480
    • View Profile
Re: 79 CR250 Front End Conversion
« Reply #87 on: July 05, 2014, 10:31:52 am »
Does that YZ have a Flat Slide carb?  Magnum or Lectron perhaps?
The "Factory Novice"
California, USA

'74 Suzuki TM100, '75 Bultaco 250 Pursang, '77 Honda XR75, '77 Suzuki RM125B, '77 Yamaha YZ400D, '79 Honda CR250RZ Moto-X Fox Replica, '83 Honda ME480RD Mugen

Offline William Doe

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 570
    • View Profile
Re: 79 CR250 Front End Conversion
« Reply #88 on: July 05, 2014, 10:32:53 am »
There it is in a nutshell. Yep, you can use shocks built yesterday with modern components & 60 clicks of rebound & compression adjustment but you can't use a 30+ year old set of forks from a bike that was produced with a linkage rear end. Makes no sense in the real world, but I guess this isn't the real world. Shocks are classed as consumables, but forks aren't coz they don't wear out apparently.
K

That is a ridiculous response.

So the guy with a Pre 65 can use a modern fork because his era fork is hard to find or expensive.

Shane,
           I get it and believe me I'm not the only one.

 Do you care to mention on here who told you your Pre 85 forks are legal and exactly what official position he held when he told you?

Ted that is a very good way of putting the point across  :) I suppose all the other classes have a year cut off witch make more sense.
In pre 75 I could race say a 1970 B50 with std BSA frame ( which is arguably the worst bike in that era ) but fit the front end out of a 1975 YZ360B (1975 but considered a flow on ) and brand new custom built Rieger or Ohlins shocks ( as can anybody in any class I believe ).

In the motor I can buy brand new ( Manufactured yesterday) billet crank , con rod etc, brand new high comp piston ,brand new  multi plate billet clutch, uprated brand new 3 speed gearbox, have the head internally modified flowed and bigger valves, brand new Dellorto or Mikuni  round slide big carb and billet custom manifold , new big bore exhaust, brand new high voltage ignition system and have the whole thing built and tuned by McLaren or Cosworth if I am prepared to pay and be legal as I am within the rules . I will leave off the brand new CCM clutch and timing covers as they alter the appearance of the motor .

I neither support or oppose this scenario as its in the rules and seems to work . The key thing is that the cut off is a year 1974 ( with some flow ons ie the 75 YZ forks ) I cannot fit forks from a 1975 RM 125S , or a 1975 CCM GP , or any other parts from 1975 , 76, 77 etc bikes as the class is pre 75 .

I can see both sides of the argument and the way the Evo rules are written I would say you would have a 50/50 chance if it went before a judge and jury re fitting later Linkage Honda forks.

I personally think that Evo bikes should be fitted with only forks from twinshock or Yamahop bikes .

Shocks are totally different ( but where do you draw the line ) same with emulators etc , I don't agree with fitting them but whos gonna check if they are ruled out .

     
Its only old bike racing FFS get over yourselves





The Artist formerly known as TM Bill

Offline Ted

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2800
    • View Profile
Re: 79 CR250 Front End Conversion
« Reply #89 on: July 05, 2014, 10:33:43 am »
Ok, if they have always been legal why the proposed changes to the wording in the MoMS?

If they have always been legal why were we shocked when he announced it just prior to the last Nats?

You as well as I know lots of things don't get protested because of the angst towards the protester if he does so
81 YZ 465 H   77 RM 125 B