PRE 90 Run on models?

[Curtis]

What post 90 MX / Enduro bikes are considered pre 90 run on models?

[OverTheHill]

Hi, over the ditch in NZ i'm hoping the RMX250 comes under 'roll on' models, but to what point--i don't know. Have an early one but not sure what year exactly, no doubt frame & engine number will determine that. If you want a laugh at my expense pics of my 'free' burnt out one are up here somewhere. Actually goes like hell & didn't know they were so nice [used to old twin shock vintage], now i've been spoilt. Only annoying thing is the enduro ratios in the mud [compared to close ratio all the way], partly due to running no power valves [wide open port] as no valves were in the box of bits that came with it--so blocked the holes off. Not worth spending money on as you'll see if you can get into my 'photo bucket picks'. Cheers.

[Curtis]

Yes im particularly interested in Suzukis, RM and RMX myself. I think it depends if there were any changes post 90??

[Nathan S]

The 90 model RM/RMX went to a two piece clutch cover. No biggy in itself, but apparently the cases are also considerably different, so the two-piece clutch cover is a give away to a later motor.
The 91(??) forks are considerably different to the 89, so that's another significant bit of non-compliance.

The 1990 RM125 is one of those "it's OK if you tilt your head and squint" carry over models. I believe the forks are the same as the 89 250's, but there are numerous small differences with the motor - whether they matter, AND anyone can pick them externally is another question.

90-92 KDX200 is a legit carry-over model. 93 and 94 too, if you fit Pre-90 forks.
90+ KX500 is a legit carry-over model if you run kosher Pre-90 swingarm, forks and front brake.

[suzuki59]

Hi, over the ditch in NZ i'm hoping the RMX250 comes under 'roll on' models, but to what point--i don't know. Have an early one but not sure what year exactly, no doubt frame & engine number will determine that. If you want a laugh at my expense pics of my 'free' burnt out one are up here somewhere. Actually goes like hell & didn't know they were so nice [used to old twin shock vintage], now i've been spoilt. Only annoying thing is the enduro ratios in the mud [compared to close ratio all the way], partly due to running no power valves [wide open port] as no valves were in the box of bits that came with it--so blocked the holes off. Not worth spending money on as you'll see if you can get into my 'photo bucket picks'. Cheers.

We run Pre 91 here and I think you'll find the organisers are more concerned to get "bums on seats" so The RMX 89-92 would be ok.
The 93 model over here in NZ changed noticeably so I think you might be pushing your luck.
DISCLAIMER-This is one mans opinion and not the view of the organisers.

[KTM47]

The question of what carry models are relevant, is something for MA to approve (through the Commission).  While opinions expressed here are of use, no one should take any opinion expressed to mean their machine may comply.

Ask MA

Also another matter that is equally as important is carry over components.  With parts becoming harder to find I believe MA (through the Commission) should make a list of components that can carry over.

This is just my opinion, but unless things are documented they are difficult to prove.

[Curtis]

True, I guess MA can have the final say on what is a legal run on. The only reason I ask is cause Iv been looking at a few potential purchases, and don't want to waste my money on something I cant race/ride. Cheers!

[KTM47]

Curtis.

Email MA [email protected]

[Nathan S]

Unless the Commission has already made a formal decision, MA probably won't know whether a bike is a run-on model or not.
They'll probably ask you to provide more evidence in the form of a proposal to have the bike accepted as a run-on model.

The proposal should include things like part numbers for the major components, spec sheets and published articles demonstrating that the later bike is mechanically identical (or very close to identical) to the 89 model.