Pre 70

[Doc]

tragic, pathetic, obsessive compulsive, any of these are fine by me definition of an expert??

An Ex is a 'has been' and a spurt is 'a drip under pressure' I guess I could be an expert of types 

[Tim754]

I am just tragic......................Cheers Tim

[Freakshow]

Been thinking about that barrell doc and im with you, if you can replace the entire internals , stators etc with a 2001 gearbox and its all legal so long as it looks externally the same from the outside any thing else is a minor point.

And in this case if the barrell looks like one on the Rh pre 70 then i say its a goer going by the rules.  I mean so what the transfers may be a little or completely differant, but that internal, so long as it looks externally similar to somthing or is from the period you represent its Kosha, In firko's case yes if you used a DT2MX barrell it wouldnt be ok cause the reed valve area makes it look externally differant and the square entry would look too differant externally to the non reed Dt.  Inclusive that the reed wasnt on models prior and would be classed as a part.

I vote yes on this bill.

[firko]

Fair enough if the RH69 barrel is the same but if it is in any way different externally, it can't be used. This argument is the same as the previous one about the legality of a couple of RC450 replicas. Any replica has to be precisely the same as its legal counterpart, not "sorta, kinda, from 10 feet away" the same. I still refer back to Eddie Brooks having to change the side that the "247cc" logo is cast into barrel as a sign that they are different, as anal as that may seem. Surely a bloke wouldn't go to those extremes if the TM barrel was identical externally?

[Doc]

It would have been a change of 248cc back to 246cc Firko That's all fair enough, if I had an RH68/69/70 barrel she'd be 100% legal but I've only got 1 lifetime so she'll be running the TM bits. This bike may only get ridden occassionally at the local dirt track so practically any mods are allowable being as it'll go in seniors and not vintage

[firko]

It would have been a change of 248cc back to 246cc Firko

That gives you an indication of my Suzuki knowledge and verifies that there is a difference in the castings.

I'm only playing 'good cop, bad cop' here, It doesn't worry me as much as it'd bother the true rule nazi in WA who would be onto any TM powered TS in a heartbeat. The bloke was going to protest my Maico if it beat his BSA at the Coffs Nats because I have a later front wheel in it, even though the basic brake is the same. That's the degree these folks go to. I'm certain that many of the TS Suzukis running in pre 70 are using TM barrels and I'm sure it doesn't matter too much as far as performance goes. However, I believe the rules have to be enforced or it may open up the door to to all sorts of skullduggery, the owners crying, "but if it's OK for those Suzuki blokes, why can't I do it?"  The old level playing field thing.

[Lozza]

Why bother with all that when the trail bike cylinder is a better starting point

[firko]

I agree Lozza.

[Tim754]

Lozza is totally on the money, just internally adjust the proper era cylinder as you could have done in 68/69 all OK no changing external bits and pieces and NO fitting and disguising later model stuff.  

[Freakshow]

I think the TM thing was just a case of what available BaRrell was around.  Not a performance issue persay but a ease of getting, are you saying the later ts 250 barrells are better ? im kinda of the thought that if i have one and it fits id stick it on regardelss of what it came off be it TS or Tm, some times trying to find all the right bits means you never get anything finished or the thing owes you so much money you dont ride it.

a 75 MX250b motor was able to get through scutineering at the Dt nats this year as pre 74, so a similar barrell in period at a club round would be fine.  IM all for the level playing thing if its going to give some kind of compeditive advantage, but as if you say the TS barrell is infact better, why wouldnt a lesser 'standard TM " barrell be ok, sounds like rivets to me.  What it means is there is another bike on the track and unless its top three dont mean 3 fiths of Fuc all, if its consistantly in the top 3 then you can re access its eligibility.    I think there is a looseness that comes with the Pack , if your in it your ok, but if your on the podium you will need to be correct and i think those guys up there know they should be rules correct, acutually i think those guys are the tinkerers anyway and strive to get the best out of the correct kit, the rest of us just turn up.

We have started to let 75 model Tm's and DT's in our dirt track rounds and will probally do so this year as the field has near doubled since saying to the guys its ok so long as we tell you up front a top 3 finish means the question will be asked, and you will have to make your bike eligible under the rules as soon as you Do a top 3.  So far no one guy has made it to the top 3 but all are as keen as mustard to ride and just enjoy being out there, they have no compeditive advantage, and they make up the fields which promotes the class as a happening thing ( momentum) and means we get starts in each round, if number as they did a few years back at some rounds dipped below 5 bikes we would run the risk of loosing our grid spot, so every one is happy to compromise for the greater good.    For some reason if everyone is riding in a class then its popular and it keeps momentum, when the level of participation wanes, its no point in a 3 horse race and the class dies out.    Currently The understanding that they will need to sort out there bikes if they get serious( place) or infact want to go to the nationals is clear and obvious to them, but they are happy to keep doing what they are doing and only ride the club and state rounds so i think its a win win for all and the sport in general. 

The sport can only survive with the numbers and i do agree however that the Nationals IS the yard stick and should be maintained as the pinnicle showcase for the periods and standards amd rules be expected/enforced, but on the other coin we need to loosen up down the line so we can get these guys on the track and at least participating.

just thinking out loud here   

[firko]

I presume that Lozza was referring to a PRE 70 TS Cylinder. not a LATER version. I've got a late TS cylinder on my TM bitza and I'm pretty sure it's a different casting to the pre '70 version. I agree with Lozza that the early TS cylinder with it's rudimentary porting gives one a better building block for a race barrel that allows the porter to avoid the mistakes Suzuki made with the TM. Gary Treadwell, probably one of the best hands with a Dremel I've seen told me just that when I was thinking of building a TS for pre '70 back in '88 or '89. Putting on my other hat however, I can see that its an easier and more importantly cheaper option to use a freely available TM barrel. Not everybody can afford to pay the serious money a serious port job costs. Like I said earlier, I have no moral objection to using a TM barrel. My objection (for want of a better word) is purely based on the rulebook interpretation as it stands now. I'm certain that a TM barrel on a pre '70 TS is illegal. Having said that I'd back any lobby to change the Suzuki criteria in MoMs to allow the TM cylinder in as a flow on after I've done my homework and checked for myself that not only is the '71 TM 250J cylinder similar, but that all TM and TS cylinder differences be addressed. If the 250M has the same casting as a 250J, I'd back any move to include them all as flow ons. If they changed for the K,L and M models I'd only vote to allow the J cylinder.

a 75 MX250b motor was able to get through scutineering at the Dt nats this year as pre 74

Cliff Pattons YZ250b slider has been a concern for quite a while and needs to be addressed. The subject came up over a couple of beers at Dave Tanners place last weekend and the story that Dave told Jonesy and I regarding MA steward John Langfields rude and agressive attitude towards Dave when he (Dave) declared Pattons bike ilegal disturbed me. Langfield overruled Daves decision and allowed an obviously illegal bike to race. As the eligibility steward for the Nats, Daves decision should have stood. Langfield was out of his juristiction and should have had no say in the matter. The fact that Cliff Pattons dad Kevin is an old mate of Langfields wouldn't have had anything to do with the decision of course! . Due to a prior committment with my Jag I missed that title meeting but I'll be at the next Nats at Raymond Terrace. If that bike is allowed to race in the the kit I've seen it in the past, with its '75 YZ engine, I'll be having a quiet word with the officials. It's the old level playing field thing again.

We have started to let 75 model Tm's and DT's in our dirt track rounds

I'm fairly certain that the M model TM250 (1975) has always been allowed in as a flow on as long as the swingarm is replaced with one from an earlier model.

[Freakshow]

Accourding to the rule book the cut off is the tm250L, the M's are out.   

I could be wrong but the 75 Tm swingarms wont take ealier models, its a differant width, which is a pain in the arse . 

We have agreed down here if your using the same 13 1/2 inch travel shocks the differance isnt in the range, maybe only in the flex, and ultimitely its not the Gp world cup so we dont think its going to change the world if we let the 75 race, the motors a carry on so its allowed and we cant justify the small issue of slight change in swing arm against the merit of another bike on the track.

If it could be easily done we would insist, but as a scutineer on our club days im saying its ok but evoke the top 3 rule if they do as such place.   fROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN AT OUR CLUB WHATEVER SLIGHT DIFFERANCE THERE IS IN THE 75 ISNT SHOWING THROUGH ON THE TRACK.    There must be hundreds of 75 model TM's out there that dont get raced cause they are in no mans land, they really need to come back into the pre 75 at least at club level, like the 75 etc elsinores are, its just a waste of a lot off bikes out there.  Perhaps the mOMS should be changed to show the 'M' as being OK, basically it was a momouth waiting for the ice age to finish, and all the R&D was going into the RM.

IF there is a easy mod for the Swing arm id love to hear about it, i think it would bring back a few to the sport and right now 75 TM are cheap as shit cause they live in the no mans land accourding to the book.

[Doc]

Freaky the truth is there aren't all that many '75 model TM's getting around. Most of them got bought up as playbikes and trailbikes. Everyone heard wind and had a taste of the RM series by '75 and were hanging out for the 'factory replica's' hence the sales in '75 TM's were at best, pathetic.

Firko, the thread started as I was unaware a TM250 barrel was not allowed in pre'70 as it comes from a different era and is a slightly different shape. Bore and stroke reamain unchanged as does the mounting arrangment, it's a bolt on item. The whole rulebook could be pulled to pieces and near every aspect contested if one really so desired and the results are anyones guess. A point in case being an RM125C cylinder. This cylinder is allowed in pre'78 as is the entire 125C engine but it is not physically the same as the '77 model. The barrel is externally different and it comes from another era so therefore why the discrimination with the TM barrel not allowed on an earlier model when TM250's did exist at the time. Maybe the rules need to be changed to rule out any flow on models. This as far as I can see is the only way of avoiding contentious issues. If it's made before the cutoff date it's in if not it's out. Simple and no confusion

as for the alloy swingarm on the B, I still say it was definately available as an option so it should be provided it has the correct mounting, rear wheel, backing plate and torque arm fitted as per '77.

[pokey]

All good versions for the old TS. I can see what Doc is saying about the "reproduction barrell" and the lengths to which firkos associates went to  for their reproduction. I guess the answer be in the eyes of the  scuitineer of the day and how much  info one could come up with  to verify the validity of the claim for reproduction modification being as the barrel would be considered a major component.
 Not a lot of the 69 TS around anymore to warrant too much drama  about anyways..
 

[Freakshow]

not so sure doc, i know of at least 7+ 75 TM just sitting around with no class for them and i have 4 myself down stairs and i dont even like suzukis.

so they may not have sold back in the day but they seem to have lasted with time and maybe as you say they where left on the showroom floor and ended up as trail bikes so they may have had a soft life.  maybe they all ended up in SA, funny i know of more 75 TM than 74's so there are still out there and alive, and not picked over as where the pre 75s have been since the lat 80's.    Just a thought as to why