So What's Wrong With It?

[BAHNZY]

A small point that seems to be lost. These forks are not OEM from a bike manafacturer, they are aftermarket items.
If you had a set of USD Simmons that were manafactured in 1985/6, would you not be permitted to use them even when they are the same configuration as the ones made in 1984?

Regarding the KX twin shock with a KX500 engine, thats a rediculous thought that it could run in EVO with a drum front end. The engine came from a linkage suspended/disc braked bike. Just beacuse it is air cooled does not make it o/k. If that was the case we would see CR250 Honda framed bikes getting around with 45+HP XR400 engines, or WR500 engines in MonoShock framed 79 model YZ250's, their air cooled after all.

[Lozza]

Bahnsy the issue is not if they were OEM or aftermarket the issue is if YOU can prove that this model fork was RACED in the period. If you can provide solid evidence that that fork was raced in the period it's a done deal.That's the way the rule is written and usually* interpreted.There are a few pics I googled up of Heinz Kinigadner's title winning 250's 1 had disc/RWU and the other USD/disc, date unknown.
This kind of thing is another excellent example why log books are a good idea and stop issues like this arising. By putting the proof of eligability burden squarely on the applicant.

[firko]

Bahnsy the issue is not if they were OEM or aftermarket the issue is if YOU can prove that this model fork was RACED in the period

Not quite right Lozza. You have to prove that the forks were available not whether they were raced. It's only a little thing but it's an important little thing. The disc brake bracket seems to be the outstanding point here, as irrelevent as it may seem.

[bigk]

It's all about the "spin" you put on it. Bahnsy want's his bike to be legal and clearly it is not, but he's going his hardest. Maybe if he machined a brake caliper hanger out of a piece of aluminium (preferably 30 years old) it would be legal. Yet he states that the KX500 air cooled, twin shock, isn't legal for EVO because of the fact the engine came from a single shock bike, even though you can apply his rationale to it just the same as the forks in his bike. It's just semantics. As for his statement about XR400 engines etc in old chassis', that is the most ridiculous statement so far, because that kind of bike would not be in the "spirit" of VMX. I have a set of disc WP4054's in the shed but don't want to ride the pre '90 classes which is where they belong. We've been through this a thousand times before, blah blah blah.....
Cheers,
K

[SUZUKI311]

FWIW i reckon if its aircooled,drum braked and twin shock then let it in for EVO. I dont reckon you will ever see some one trying to put an xr400 motor in anything, ever! let alone a WR500 motor in a YZ250F.... I think some people are getting too emotional about the rules and getting too wound up about legalities etc. Take a step back people and remember why we ride/restore these things, mainly for the FUN of it, and mixing with people who have an affinity for these old bikes and the era.

[CamP]

In the US, the AHRMA makes this an easy call. No disc brakes.

[kaw440]

maybe i should take out my works forks and fit the simons UKD60 i have to my 79 KX500  and put twin leading brakes on it then it would be twin shock drum brakes and air cooled but it would still be NOT WITHIN THE SPIRT OF EVO by some standards but lucky i didnt build it for evo hey as this is built within the guide lines for pre 85 its all about how you want to read the rules as for the forks on bahnys kx are of no advantage but they are from a latter model bike due to the disc brake carrier so if you want to be anal like some and us the phrase NOT WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF PRE85 then they are not leagal but it all comes down to the riders ability and how much you twist that throttle

[firko]

This is the type of situation that gives the critics amunition to call the officials, "anal, pedantic and 'scrutinazis'' and other derogatory terms but in the end it needs to be sorted. It really comes down to three ways of looking at the situation.
1:Assuming the WP forks with the disc bracket are post 1984, the proper scrutineering decision would be to not allow the bike to compete.

2:The other, more lenient way of looking at it is that, assuming the disc carrier WPs are identical in every other way to the pre '85 drum braked version shown in the KTM ad Bahnsy posted perhaps there'd be no percieved advantage and the bike should be allowed to compete.

3:If the second option is taken the situation then arises that the combination of WP forks and disc brakes didn't exist before 1985, even though it's a given that the disc and caliper are kosher pre 85 items. It's the combination that is is in question not so much the individual components.

Not being a pre 85 class expert I've gone from one opinion to another on Bahnsys bike after seeing more and more 'evidence'. I'm relying on evidence that's been presented here and as much as I'd love to see such a cool bike compete at Conondale, I doubt it if the eligibility steward could in all honesty pass the bike based on what's been presented here.Having said that if Rod has any printed evidence that WP 4054 forks with the disc caliper carrier dide appear prior to 1985 he deserves to race it.

Situations like this are why the eligibility scrutineers job often sucks. Bahnsys Kawasaki is a very cool bike that rides the veerrry fine line between cool and ilegal. In an engineering sense it's doubtful that the bike possesses any definitive advantages over another machine in the same class using 43mm Showa cartridge forks full of modern technology but sadly a line has to be drawn somewhere.
I really hope I'm not called to give advice on this one at Conondale.

[LWC82PE]

this is my first time to read this thread. GREAT BIKE Bahnsey! One thing i noticed on the 4054 stickers they have ACIR i think? was that only on adjustable models? On most of my photos on the aftermarket 4054's from around 87/88 they have those stickers but did the early ones still have those stickers?

Does anyone have an aftermarket listing showing 4054 available for purchase for a 84 KX500?

[Nathan S]

What Firko said.

Here's a point, picking up on something that bigk said:
Assuming that there were no disc-brakes 4054s in 1984, would it be legal to machine up a lower mount to fit the pre-85 caliper?

I'd argue that the answer is "Yes" - the production components are all pre-85, and the custom bit to marry them together could have been made pre-85.

Assuming that most people agree with that, then what is acheived by forcing Bahnsy to spend hundreds of dollars on machining up cusom bits that already exist as (later) production parts?

[kaw440]

As for the word anal firko it is not directed at any one person including officals it means people that carnt say one thing and do another as has happened here in vic. So where do you draw the line on bike class rules if it looks close is that good enough well my kx500 is close if i fit a drum brakes front end but we all know that for evo it still wont cut it as for it has later model parts ie forks and caliper maybe i should have said fussy ,hi standards , straight down the line , my coment is not derogatory just maybe in the wrong context sorry for whom has taken offence to this

[firko]

No Kaw440, I wasn't referring to you at all, in fact I'd overlooked the reference in your statement. I was speaking generally about some peoples attitudes to the rulebook and scrutineers. No offence taken at all mate

[E74]

In the US, the AHRMA makes this an easy call. No disc brakes.

You are talking about a completely different class of Racing in the US known as "Ultima", nothing to do with Pre 85 or us here in Australia where pre 85 is ummm.... pre 85!

[CamP]

In the US, the AHRMA makes this an easy call. No disc brakes.

You are talking about a completely different class of Racing in the US known as "Ultima", nothing to do with Pre 85 or us here in Australia where pre 85 is ummm.... pre 85!

It appears that the classes are more similar than different. AHRMA's Ultima class is also '84 and earlier, but bike's with disc brakes are excluded. Disc brakes are a big advantage over even the best drum brakes so it makes sense to make that the line of demarcation for class designation. This also eliminates the gray area that y'all are currently debating.

[LWC82PE]

i thought about this a bit and i think there are a few scenarios.


1 - claim that they are 4054's off a 1984 KTM, remove the honda number stamped in the cap and stamp a KTM number and pre 85 date of manufacture. You would then have to machine custom made lower axle/caliper mounts to use a pre 85 cailper of your choice. In theory you could say that any KX owner during 1984 could have got a set off a KTM and machined his own lower axle/caliper mounts.

Problem is someone could come along and pick that the outer and inner tubes may not be the same length as what was on the 84 KTM and have the same amount of travel.

2 - produce evidence that 4054's were available for purchase as an aftermarket item during 1984 or even better available specifically for the 84 KX500. You could then probably get away with what you have done, although if it was me i would probably machine custom made lower axle/caliper mounts to suit the KX wheel/brake if the Honda ones are obviously different to what would of been sold on the aftermarket set specifically for the KX. That way you could use the KX 500 caliper aswell. I would even go as far as removing the honda number stamped on the cap and leave it blank. You could then claim the caps and lower mounts were broken/butchered and you had those parts reproduced which i think would be ok.

If you want to find out if there were 4054's sold as aftermarket forks during 84 for the KX500 i would be tracking down Tom or Dan White in USA from White Brothers. They should know.

Hypertheotically you could have bought a new/nos cylinder from Kawasaki in say 1988 for the 84 KX 500 that was cast in 1988 for example but it is legal as its the same part but just made later. So i think it should be legal to use the 86 4054's if you provide proof to the scrutineer that they are essentially the same.

I think what Bahnesy has done is more legal than all the modern Ohlins twin shocks out there that are being made in current yr 2009 and dont look the same as what was available pre 85.