Post by: chump6784 on May 22, 2012, 08:07:53 PM
i thought it was funny that he was saying i should "upgrade" and by the end if the conversation it sounded like he should be upgrading
Post by: nom de guerre on May 22, 2012, 08:27:16 PM
Post by: Recovered on May 22, 2012, 08:42:36 PM
"upgrade" to a bike with 15 less horepower, 25more lbs, and half the service life.
people are just fucking stupid, there's no way else to explain it.
Post by: scotty dog on May 23, 2012, 01:14:41 AM
Print out that dyno plot of the 250SX dyno'd with the 250F, and pull it out and show it to them the next time someone uses the term "upgrade".Hit the nail on the head, i have had four stroke numbskulls tell me the same. I tell em i'll challenge em to a top end rebuild between races they get this blank look on there face....
"upgrade" to a bike with 15 less horepower, 25more lbs, and half the service life.
people are just fucking stupid, there's no way else to explain it.
Post by: rookie on May 23, 2012, 01:34:57 AM
somebody just need to learn by the hard way.
Post by: Recovered on May 23, 2012, 01:36:07 AM
Post by: xandyx on May 23, 2012, 01:50:31 AM
it's true, i've seen it!! MXA is available here in Portugal, they get the magazine and i ear them talking about non sense bike improvments from a year to another and a bit latter they'll decide to trade theyr bikes.
local bike shops have loads of 4 stroke bikes, 2 or 3 new ones, and 10 of them from 05 to 2011 in mint condition, that's why i say it's fashion to trade bikes nowadays..
Post by: scotty dog on May 23, 2012, 02:26:24 AM
Post by: Recovered on May 23, 2012, 02:56:16 AM
Post by: snook620 on May 23, 2012, 06:38:33 AM
Ive been turning some laps on my sons bmx track with a klx110 so Ive gotta speak up
..and Im getting pretty damn fast 
Post by: cnrcpla on May 23, 2012, 12:30:54 PM
Quote
the thing is that no one wants to feel like an idiot for buying an 8900 dollar piece of shit. so, logically they are going to talk it up as much as possible, and talk down to everyone around them.Exactly. Nailed it right there. No one wants to admit they bought a POS, so they don't make it look that way by any means they can.
Post by: Recovered on May 23, 2012, 12:35:15 PM
So it makes someone fucking stupid because of the dirt bike they ride? WTF does it matter what everyone else rides? Who cares how much it cost to rebuild? Seriously?
Ive been turning some laps on my sons bmx track with a klx110 so Ive gotta speak up
no, what you ride does not make you stupid.
but if you pulled up to a guy on a KX105 supermini on your KLX110 and started giving hi the 7th degree on how bad ass your fourstroke 110 is, and why the supermini guy should "upgrade", then yea, let's just say you would not be a front runner for the nobel prize in astro-physics.
Post by: MetalMike1982 on May 23, 2012, 01:16:22 PM
in the 80s and 90s you actually needed the new bike to be competitive. that stopped in around 05-06. but back in 92, if you didnt get the 93, you were getting raped. also, the build quality was much lower, so chances were your 92 model was completely clapped at 30 hours.
Throwing jabs at older bikes is just what you do huh ?
Post by: Recovered on May 23, 2012, 01:30:09 PM
in the 80s and 90s you actually needed the new bike to be competitive. that stopped in around 05-06. but back in 92, if you didnt get the 93, you were getting raped. also, the build quality was much lower, so chances were your 92 model was completely clapped at 30 hours.
Throwing jabs at older bikes is just what you do huh ?
are you emotionally attached to pre-00 bikes?
Post by: VintageBlueSmoke on May 23, 2012, 03:28:44 PM
Luckily for me, I was picked up by another Yamaha squad and my problem solved.
But I hear you, their ain't much difference (performance wise) since the mid 90's. YSS might be the biggest thing since then bu tI doubt it is "game changing" like the changes every few years preceding it.
Post by: snook620 on May 23, 2012, 06:29:51 PM
no, what you ride does not make you stupid.
but if you pulled up to a guy on a KX105 supermini on your KLX110 and started giving hi the 7th degree on how bad ass your fourstroke 110 is, and why the supermini guy should "upgrade", then yea, let's just say you would not be a front runner for the nobel prize in astro-physics.
Just bustin your grapes bro
I can definitely see the logic there. If I could put a bad ass head and suspension on it I definitely know which one Id rather ride. Id absolutly kill myself through a bmx rythem section on a 105 haha
I dont like it when anyone tries to say what they have is better than whos ever. Ride what you want and do your talking on the track. If your beating the guy whos telling you to upgrade then how stupid does he look? An upgrade to one person isnt always an upgrade to another is what I would have said.
Post by: dsrtrider48 on May 23, 2012, 07:11:08 PM
Post by: msambuco on May 23, 2012, 08:14:08 PM
in the 80s and 90s you actually needed the new bike to be competitive. that stopped in around 05-06. but back in 92, if you didnt get the 93, you were getting raped. also, the build quality was much lower, so chances were your 92 model was completely clapped at 30 hours.
Throwing jabs at older bikes is just what you do huh ?
He's not throwing jabs. The bikes today are built way better than back then. In 1985 I had a new CR250 that I raced every week in the amatuer class. I needed another one to finish the season around August. The frame was mashed into the engine cases and the thing was totally worn out. We all love the old bikes. My 08 YZ250 has about as much time on it as about two of those amatuer seasons. Never had the top end off. Only wear items were brakes, head bearing, front wheel bearings, and a few spokes (which was my fault). Biggest maintainance is fork bushings and suspention fluids. You can buy a KTMSX or YZ and run it hard for at least 3 seasons If you go through it each off season).
Post by: chump6784 on May 23, 2012, 09:27:21 PM
in the 80s and 90s you actually needed the new bike to be competitive. that stopped in around 05-06. but back in 92, if you didnt get the 93, you were getting raped. also, the build quality was much lower, so chances were your 92 model was completely clapped at 30 hours.I remember the 90's like that, I wasn't riding in the 80's. I used to get a new bike every year cos I pretty much had to. Now I ride an 07 RM which other than some engine changes is pretty much the same as an 01 and still has the same suspension components as a 2012 rmz
Post by: MetalMike1982 on May 23, 2012, 11:56:27 PM
in the 80s and 90s you actually needed the new bike to be competitive. that stopped in around 05-06. but back in 92, if you didnt get the 93, you were getting raped. also, the build quality was much lower, so chances were your 92 model was completely clapped at 30 hours.
Throwing jabs at older bikes is just what you do huh ?
are you emotionally attached to pre-00 bikes?
I'm emotionally attached to ALL 2 stroke bikes and have been ever since I got my 1st one . I just dont like the shit talking about them . I've owned plenty of 80's and 90's bikes and they were great bikes . Never had pegs fly off or had one turn into a clapper after 2 rides , they held up just as good as the newer bikes I've had . The 91 cr125 I currently have along with an 03 rm125 and the 91 feels way more solid than the 03 . Wheels bearings last longer than 4 months and the suspension seals have yet to even so much as weep in the 3 years I've owned it , the 03 on the other hand eats bearings like no tommorrow , spokes need tightening after just about every ride and is about to get the fork seals replaced (again) along with the crank . I've owned the honda longer and its cost a lot less to maintain over the years than the 03rm handsdown . The 91 still has tight suspension, no play in the crank bearings , has the original wheels and all the spokes are tight and STAY tight . I have the comparison between old and new in my garage as we speak so i'm sorry guys but I know better .
Nothing like schooling a bunch of fartstrokes at Dade shitty on a bike older than most of the kids riding f's and I'm no Mcgrath so It's not like i'm doing something special out there , the bike is more than capable.
Post by: cnrcpla on May 24, 2012, 01:04:56 AM
Post by: Recovered on May 24, 2012, 01:26:15 AM
I have to beg to differ with you guys here about the 90's bikes. The YZ in my sig down there went 200+ hours with out a single bolt turned in the engine. Granted it isn't stock by any means, but still.
What about everything around it?
Post by: xandyx on May 24, 2012, 01:32:34 AM
some guys i know are just weekend riders, they also get lot's of bolt on parts but they don't even feel the difference due to lack of tracks or good trails were someone else needs to be competitive to require mods or new bikes every year.
you guys in the states have great conditions to get into the sport and make good progress, even if you're not an A class rider, you guys can kick ass.
Post by: Recovered on May 24, 2012, 02:35:01 AM
i think it worths buying a fresh bike when you have/had a racing career or you're an average rider.
some guys i know are just weekend riders, they also get lot's of bolt on parts but they don't even feel the difference due to lack of tracks or good trails were someone else needs to be competitive to require mods or new bikes every year.
you guys in the states have great conditions to get into the sport and make good progress, even if you're not an A class rider, you guys can kick ass.
I feel your pain. I lived outside the USA for 4 years and I used to think to myself how difficult it would be to race motocross where I was. I didn't even bother. Just sat out. There was one dinky little track that barely qualified as a pit bike track, and the owner of the property was a scandalous little Japanese shit.
Luckily, the Philippines was so close, and that became my hobby for 4 years.
Post by: cnrcpla on May 24, 2012, 02:51:29 AM
Quote
What about everything around it?What do you mean? Frame is stock plastics are stock, engine has been ported, bored over a little, wiseco piston, dyno racing ports expansion chamber, FMF turbine core tail pipe, After market clutch, sprockets, chain, suspension. Oh and the rims as far as I know are stock. The only thing holding me back from buying a new bike is starting all over again. And have you ever smoked someone's brand new bike on a 90's bike? That feeling is priceless.
Not to mention, with all the work to my 250, it's just as good as any brand new bike. I have ridden newer YZ's and I honestly can't feel much of a difference, except for handling and a different power band range.
Post by: dogger315 on May 24, 2012, 04:32:04 AM
Quote
in the 80s and 90s you actually needed the new bike to be competitive. that stopped in around 05-06I agree with the first statement from a payout perspective, but the second statement makes no sense.
Are you saying that the bikes built in 05-06 were still competitive in let's say 08-09, but a 92-93 bike
was not competitive in 95-96? And that the bikes built back in the 90s were not built as well as today's
bikes?
A racer would buy a new bike every season back then in order to qualify for the contingency money
the manufacturers paid out. You were only eligible if you were racing a current year bike. There were
no earth shattering changes from year to year in the 90s. A 93 design could still win races at the
highest level of competition in 96 - just ask Jeremy McGrath.
From personal experince, my new race bikes are no more reliable, faster, durable or better constructed
than many bikes I raced in the 90s, and they are just as used up at the end of the season as my 90s
bikes, maybe more so with the Aluminum frames.
dogger
Post by: maicoman009 on May 24, 2012, 06:06:10 AM
Tell em' dogger! I agree with ya 100% & I miss a lot of those 90's bikes as they all well mostly all of the brands had cromoly steel frames which imo are a much better material to make a dirt bike frame. The engines on the 90's 2-strokes where reliable & still can be with some work & updated parts! I also recall the 90's 4-strokes & although they were'nt as fast or powerful as the current crop of 4t's they were much more reliable & not like the time bomb 4-strokes are today!....Quotein the 80s and 90s you actually needed the new bike to be competitive. that stopped in around 05-06I agree with the first statement from a payout perspective, but the second statement makes no sense.
Are you saying that the bikes built in 05-06 were still competitive in let's say 08-09, but a 92-93 bike
was not competitive in 95-96? And that the bikes built back in the 90s were not built as well as today's
bikes?
A racer would buy a new bike every season back then in order to qualify for the contingency money
the manufacturers paid out. You were only eligible if you were racing a current year bike. There were
no earth shattering changes from year to year in the 90s. A 93 design could still win races at the
highest level of competition in 96 - just ask Jeremy McGrath.
From personal experince, my new race bikes are no more reliable, faster, durable or better constructed
than many bikes I raced in the 90s, and they are just as used up at the end of the season as my 90s
bikes, maybe more so with the Aluminum frames.
dogger
Post by: Stusmoke on May 24, 2012, 07:48:08 AM
Honestly though, if people are totally sweet with spending all this money on these mongrel pieces of shit, who are we to argue? If both engine types are put in fair class comparisons and all the manufacturers start making the bastards again who cares? And anyone telling me that cc vs cc is fair needs to go back to school. We all hate that the four strokes are given such a massive advantage but you're willing to turn around and do the same thing to the four stroke lovers? That is not fair. If the classes become fair who cares what bike people ride?
Post by: chump6784 on May 24, 2012, 10:30:46 AM
I've always said I can order in a full engine rebuild for my bike for roughly the same price it costs to do the valves at my local dealership. Some of you are probably gonna try to call bullshit but until you've rung up Top Two Motorcycles Warwick and gotten a quote for new valves in say a 2011 CRF250R don't say a word. That statement is based on figures from my local Australian dealer.
Honestly though, if people are totally sweet with spending all this money on these mongrel pieces of shit, who are we to argue? If both engine types are put in fair class comparisons and all the manufacturers start making the bastards again who cares? And anyone telling me that cc vs cc is fair needs to go back to school. We all hate that the four strokes are given such a massive advantage but you're willing to turn around and do the same thing to the four stroke lovers? That is not fair. If the classes become fair who cares what bike people ride?
Are you talking about a full 2 stroke rebuild for the price of 4 stroke valves, if so i believe you. I have looked into it just out of curiosity and am so glad a got a 2 stroke
As someone who races in the 250 class in Australia i believe that cc vs cc is fair. Yes the two stroke make more power but it is harder to use, it is easier to make mistakes with and doesn't put its power down as well. Hit the gas too early on the two stroke and the back will break loose and slide all over the place. The four stroke just pushes the front end a little bit. Get the two stroke to hook up though and you will reap the rewards.
At one track i race at regularly it is sand based. I feel i have an advantage at that track, at another track i visit regularly it is hard packed with short straights and i feel the 4 stroke has the advantage there.
Also power isnt everything. Look at the lap times at hangtown, the 250's were running the same time while they were battling for the lead as stewart was when he was out on his own.
If Roger DeCoster thinks cc vs cc is good then that is good enough for me
Post by: VintageBlueSmoke on May 24, 2012, 10:56:02 AM
As for having to upgrade bikes, there were ERA's that made big differences. Early '70s was when the 2T came into vogue. Husky, Bultaco, CZ, Maico...it was a great time and each bike was very different from the next. In the mid '70's came the long suspension and reed valves. Hp went up and so did travel. You'd be hard pressed to be an A rider on a '72 Husky keeping up with a fast B on '75 Husky GP Mag. Then came the '80 and disk brakes and water cooling. Water cooling was important because Hp would drop drastically by the end of the moto. That was fine when everyone was air cooled, but it only took one guy to show up and have 10 more Hp at the end of the moto and you were off to the dealer...Disk brakes were huge. Premix commented on Tichnor nose wheeling into corners, I was still on drums back then. He was amazing! He could have been on an 80 and beat me with his higher corner speeds. The next big change was suspensions and cartridge forkes. Sure, you could get Simmons (Fox) or Fox Air Shocks (developed by Simons) but when all the manufactures changed to them...And then the power valve made all that power usable. Off to the dealer again...
That was it. Bold new graphics. Maybe the minor tweeks over a several year period made them more competitive (say a '91 to an '01) but nothing game changing. Nothing that would get you moved up a class.
Like posted, you bought a new bike because you thrashed the old one or you wanted contingency money.
Post by: Recovered on May 24, 2012, 12:17:40 PM
@Premix - Okinawa? There used to be a great MX track there (20 years !). Not so much Enduro or trail. PI? Awesome Enurdo and trail riding. The base (Clark) actually had an (official) dirt bike club. Their trail rides were legendary! Some multi day events, really cool locals and had everything from Beginnner to Xtreme! Plus you could stop off in the ally on the way back...for a bath.
As for having to upgrade bikes, there were ERA's that made big differences. Early '70s was when the 2T came into vogue. Husky, Bultaco, CZ, Maico...it was a great time and each bike was very different from the next. In the mid '70's came the long suspension and reed valves. Hp went up and so did travel. You'd be hard pressed to be an A rider on a '72 Husky keeping up with a fast B on '75 Husky GP Mag. Then came the '80 and disk brakes and water cooling. Water cooling was important because Hp would drop drastically by the end of the moto. That was fine when everyone was air cooled, but it only took one guy to show up and have 10 more Hp at the end of the moto and you were off to the dealer...Disk brakes were huge. Premix commented on Tichnor nose wheeling into corners, I was still on drums back then. He was amazing! He could have been on an 80 and beat me with his higher corner speeds. The next big change was suspensions and cartridge forkes. Sure, you could get Simmons (Fox) or Fox Air Shocks (developed by Simons) but when all the manufactures changed to them...And then the power valve made all that power usable. Off to the dealer again...
That was it. Bold new graphics. Maybe the minor tweeks over a several year period made them more competitive (say a '91 to an '01) but nothing game changing. Nothing that would get you moved up a class.
Like posted, you bought a new bike because you thrashed the old one or you wanted contingency money.
The Okinawa motocross track was on Kadena airbase and it has been gone for 15 years.
Post by: Stusmoke on May 24, 2012, 12:46:42 PM
I've always said I can order in a full engine rebuild for my bike for roughly the same price it costs to do the valves at my local dealership. Some of you are probably gonna try to call bullshit but until you've rung up Top Two Motorcycles Warwick and gotten a quote for new valves in say a 2011 CRF250R don't say a word. That statement is based on figures from my local Australian dealer.
Honestly though, if people are totally sweet with spending all this money on these mongrel pieces of shit, who are we to argue? If both engine types are put in fair class comparisons and all the manufacturers start making the bastards again who cares? And anyone telling me that cc vs cc is fair needs to go back to school. We all hate that the four strokes are given such a massive advantage but you're willing to turn around and do the same thing to the four stroke lovers? That is not fair. If the classes become fair who cares what bike people ride?
Are you talking about a full 2 stroke rebuild for the price of 4 stroke valves, if so i believe you. I have looked into it just out of curiosity and am so glad a got a 2 stroke
As someone who races in the 250 class in Australia i believe that cc vs cc is fair. Yes the two stroke make more power but it is harder to use, it is easier to make mistakes with and doesn't put its power down as well. Hit the gas too early on the two stroke and the back will break loose and slide all over the place. The four stroke just pushes the front end a little bit. Get the two stroke to hook up though and you will reap the rewards.
At one track i race at regularly it is sand based. I feel i have an advantage at that track, at another track i visit regularly it is hard packed with short straights and i feel the 4 stroke has the advantage there.
Also power isnt everything. Look at the lap times at hangtown, the 250's were running the same time while they were battling for the lead as stewart was when he was out on his own.
If Roger DeCoster thinks cc vs cc is good then that is good enough for me
I think instead of going all the way on the cc vs cc thing it would be good to reduce the maximum displacement of the FOUR STROKES in the 125 class to 180 or 200 MAXIMUM. That way the 125s get a little bit of horsepower advantage and we all get to keep the ring ding ding ding buzz of the true 125cc motocrosser that we all love. In hardpack conditions the four joke might pull ahead a little, but when theres an outside like it will be left chugging through the corner while the 125s rail their screaming asses around the berm. That'd be the best way to go in my opinion
Post by: MetalMike1982 on May 24, 2012, 01:37:57 PM
I have to beg to differ with you guys here about the 90's bikes. The YZ in my sig down there went 200+ hours with out a single bolt turned in the engine. Granted it isn't stock by any means, but still.
Better be careful with that anemic 90's pos . I wouldnt even so much as stare to hard at it or things will start bending and breaking clapper style .
Getting easier to tell the difference between the people on here who actually ride dirtbikes and the people who ride desk chairs behind a computer .
Post by: cnrcpla on May 24, 2012, 01:43:46 PM
Post by: Brap on May 24, 2012, 03:03:51 PM
I have to beg to differ with you guys here about the 90's bikes. The YZ in my sig down there went 200+ hours with out a single bolt turned in the engine. Granted it isn't stock by any means, but still.my 99 RM125 went 250+ without a bolt turned to haha, just a new back tire
Post by: cnrcpla on May 24, 2012, 03:07:22 PM
Quote
my 99 RM125 went 250+ without a bolt turned to haha, just a new back tireYeah man, same here. My old rear tire was bald... hahaha
Post by: TotalNZ on May 25, 2012, 12:25:28 AM
Post by: scotty dog on May 25, 2012, 12:32:26 AM
You guys must just cruise around and trail ride alot. There's no way in hell you could get 250 hours racing hard.That is true, racing a bike is very hard on it, even if you dont touch it for a season its gunna be pretty worn by the end of it. I havent raced in years and barely ride these days but when i did i had to maintain my bikes or they would fall to bits, and i consider that maintenance, wheel bearings, suspension bearings, pistons, rings, new gear, brake n clutch levers, cables, spark plugs, chains n sprockets as "turning a bolt".........
Post by: Stusmoke on May 25, 2012, 01:06:04 AM
All I'm saying is that YZ down there has been through terrain that can bring modern bikes to their knees. I don't need people to tell me what bike I should ride, or what year is best. I ride what I ride and I am used to my bike. It has been through a lot with me, and I don't need a brand new bike with the latest and greatest for me to have fun, or be fast. I may only be a weekend warrior, but I do well enough to put a good name out for two strokes and to have fun. Not to mention, Yamaha hasn't changed much anyways...
Really... What else needs to be said.
Post by: scotty dog on May 25, 2012, 12:52:55 PM
I fail to see how an engine that hasn't had anything groundbreaking happen to it since the '80s can be shitty and breaking all the time in the 90s, then in the 2000's all of a sudden be unbreakableProbably better materials used making them with the later models, not so much in the way of engine developement, they do last longer, i had a 90 YZ 125 which i had in 92, the cases were worn out were the mains go causing the crank to move a good 2-3 mm sideways, which caused the magneto to break. I bought the bike from the local Yamaha dealer and was extremely well maintained and wasnt ridden a great deal before i got it.
Post by: cnrcpla on May 25, 2012, 10:26:31 PM
Quote
You guys must just cruise around and trail ride alot. There's no way in hell you could get 250 hours racing hard.You are right. I was out for a season due to a foot injury and that 200 hours was all trails. My point was that the engine is not going to grenade every hour of riding just because its from the 90's...
Post by: TotalNZ on May 26, 2012, 08:44:38 AM
No definately not, I've got a 94 CR250 and it's a brilliant bike although i think the quality of components has improved alot on the new bikes.QuoteYou guys must just cruise around and trail ride alot. There's no way in hell you could get 250 hours racing hard.You are right. I was out for a season due to a foot injury and that 200 hours was all trails. My point was that the engine is not going to grenade every hour of riding just because its from the 90's...
Over the same 200 odd hour period on my CR, racing few Xcountrys bit of moto but mostly fast trail riding I've gone through 1 complete rebuild ie every bearing and seal in the motor, 4 pistons, 1 fork rebuild and around 3 sets of seals, 1 shock rebuild, i set of clutch plates and i've filed the basket twice now so it needs replaced. 3 chain and sprocket sets, numerous brake pad and wheel bearing changes along with 2 or 3 muffler rebuilds.
Oh and about 3 rear mudguards.
Wish you could do 250 hours and not touch anything.
Post by: cnrcpla on May 26, 2012, 02:02:06 PM
Post by: MetalMike1982 on May 26, 2012, 08:28:54 PM
I would seriously love to know what "components" are made better from the 90's to current . My 21 yr old cr125 is making my o3 rm look more and more overated everytime I ride it . My lap times have gotten better since riding the oldie and it dosent need new parts everytime I turn around unlike the suzuki. I spoke with a well known pro that raced and won in the 90's at my local track last night about this matter and he laughed and asked how many people claiming older bikes are cheap crap raced pro and actually won races ?
And said his early 90's rm's were some of his favorite bikes period .
Post by: Stusmoke on May 27, 2012, 03:18:42 AM
Bottom line is ANY bike new or old has to be maintained in order to last .
I would seriously love to know what "components" are made better from the 90's to current .
Agreed. Metal fabrication hasn't gone anywhere in about 30 years to the best of my knowledge. The most recent ground breaking advancement in particle physics was the super colider and that doesn't make bikes
Post by: scotty dog on May 27, 2012, 04:26:20 AM
It was just a guess that components were made a bit better these days, but im no expert and im not a pro so probably know fuck all anywayBottom line is ANY bike new or old has to be maintained in order to last .
I would seriously love to know what "components" are made better from the 90's to current .
Agreed. Metal fabrication hasn't gone anywhere in about 30 years to the best of my knowledge. The most recent ground breaking advancement in particle physics was the super colider and that doesn't make bikes
Post by: TotalNZ on May 27, 2012, 05:44:30 AM
Bottom line is ANY bike new or old has to be maintained in order to last .You've gotta be kidding wanting to know what components, wasn't that long ago steel bars were stock, not to mention shitty stock footpegs that used to crush up easy much better on new bikes, YZ's even have titanium. Which brings me to suspension, worlds apart from the 90's to today.
I would seriously love to know what "components" are made better from the 90's to current . My 21 yr old cr125 is making my o3 rm look more and more overated everytime I ride it . My lap times have gotten better since riding the oldie and it dosent need new parts everytime I turn around unlike the suzuki. I spoke with a well known pro that raced and won in the 90's at my local track last night about this matter and he laughed and asked how many people claiming older bikes are cheap crap raced pro and actually won races ?
The only real factor in making my 94 CR slower than my TM or another modern bike is the suspension, suspension and brakes.
Post by: MetalMike1982 on May 27, 2012, 02:01:10 PM
Bottom line is ANY bike new or old has to be maintained in order to last .You've gotta be kidding wanting to know what components, wasn't that long ago steel bars were stock, not to mention shitty stock footpegs that used to crush up easy much better on new bikes, YZ's even have titanium. Which brings me to suspension, worlds apart from the 90's to today.
I would seriously love to know what "components" are made better from the 90's to current . My 21 yr old cr125 is making my o3 rm look more and more overated everytime I ride it . My lap times have gotten better since riding the oldie and it dosent need new parts everytime I turn around unlike the suzuki. I spoke with a well known pro that raced and won in the 90's at my local track last night about this matter and he laughed and asked how many people claiming older bikes are cheap crap raced pro and actually won races ?
The only real factor in making my 94 CR slower than my TM or another modern bike is the suspension, suspension and brakes.
My 2003 rm came stock with steel bars . Bars and foot pegs arent cheap and replaceable I guess . Suspension is better on the new bikes but NOT worlds apart . As for a tm I have no idea never ridden one .
I'm not at all arguing the fact that bikes have improved over the years but a determined rider on an older bike can still go fast without worring about the bike falling apart or folding up as it's being ridden . Pretty large grey area between slightly out dated and complete pos thats not worthy of riding . Thats all I'm sayin
Post by: snook620 on May 27, 2012, 04:31:47 PM
Post by: TotalNZ on May 28, 2012, 06:13:35 AM
Yeah i agree, i raced my 94 CR with pretty good success against late model bikes.Bottom line is ANY bike new or old has to be maintained in order to last .You've gotta be kidding wanting to know what components, wasn't that long ago steel bars were stock, not to mention shitty stock footpegs that used to crush up easy much better on new bikes, YZ's even have titanium. Which brings me to suspension, worlds apart from the 90's to today.
I would seriously love to know what "components" are made better from the 90's to current . My 21 yr old cr125 is making my o3 rm look more and more overated everytime I ride it . My lap times have gotten better since riding the oldie and it dosent need new parts everytime I turn around unlike the suzuki. I spoke with a well known pro that raced and won in the 90's at my local track last night about this matter and he laughed and asked how many people claiming older bikes are cheap crap raced pro and actually won races ?
The only real factor in making my 94 CR slower than my TM or another modern bike is the suspension, suspension and brakes.
My 2003 rm came stock with steel bars . Bars and foot pegs arent cheap and replaceable I guess . Suspension is better on the new bikes but NOT worlds apart . As for a tm I have no idea never ridden one .
I'm not at all arguing the fact that bikes have improved over the years but a determined rider on an older bike can still go fast without worring about the bike falling apart or folding up as it's being ridden . Pretty large grey area between slightly out dated and complete pos thats not worthy of riding . Thats all I'm sayin
I still say the suspension on 90's bikes is worlds apart from the new stuff. I over jumped a big double the other day and the TM sucked it up so well, i would've just about broken the CR in half and definately ate shit.
My TM's got 50mm marzocchi's and an ohlins shock so it's pretty good.
I'd never say a bikes a pos just cause it's from the 90's though, i love my CR.
Post by: scotty dog on May 28, 2012, 06:20:39 AM
Definately not, i seen a picture of an 89 YZ 250 with the Ohlins 360 kit, i want one of them too nowYeah i agree, i raced my 94 CR with pretty good success against late model bikes.Bottom line is ANY bike new or old has to be maintained in order to last .You've gotta be kidding wanting to know what components, wasn't that long ago steel bars were stock, not to mention shitty stock footpegs that used to crush up easy much better on new bikes, YZ's even have titanium. Which brings me to suspension, worlds apart from the 90's to today.
I would seriously love to know what "components" are made better from the 90's to current . My 21 yr old cr125 is making my o3 rm look more and more overated everytime I ride it . My lap times have gotten better since riding the oldie and it dosent need new parts everytime I turn around unlike the suzuki. I spoke with a well known pro that raced and won in the 90's at my local track last night about this matter and he laughed and asked how many people claiming older bikes are cheap crap raced pro and actually won races ?
The only real factor in making my 94 CR slower than my TM or another modern bike is the suspension, suspension and brakes.
My 2003 rm came stock with steel bars . Bars and foot pegs arent cheap and replaceable I guess . Suspension is better on the new bikes but NOT worlds apart . As for a tm I have no idea never ridden one .
I'm not at all arguing the fact that bikes have improved over the years but a determined rider on an older bike can still go fast without worring about the bike falling apart or folding up as it's being ridden . Pretty large grey area between slightly out dated and complete pos thats not worthy of riding . Thats all I'm sayin
I still say the suspension on 90's bikes is worlds apart from the new stuff. I over jumped a big double the other day and the TM sucked it up so well, i would've just about broken the CR in half and definately ate shit.
My TM's got 50mm marzocchi's and an ohlins shock so it's pretty good.
I'd never say a bikes a pos just cause it's from the 90's though, i love my CR.
this beast...
Post by: Stusmoke on May 28, 2012, 07:49:52 AM
Post by: VintageBlueSmoke on May 28, 2012, 09:14:10 AM
I was out this weekend on my (new to me) KTM. I could barely ride it around our track. Even though the oil level and spring rates were correct for me, the initial part of the stroke was too harsh. A few minutes at the truck and I had it all dialed in. All my buddies, wanting to try the 2-stroke thought the suspension was the best they had ridden.
That is very different from when I went out there with my '80 Can-Am. With that, I had to take it back to the shop to disassemble, change the oil and change the nitrogen pressure to get it close. All done, the Can-Am works just as well as the almost 30 year newer KTM.
I then rode the 250F of one of those buddies and gave up after one lap. Not that it was a 4$, but that all those knobs and adjustments must have confused him. I'd take the Can-Am of that anyday!
Post by: TotalNZ on May 28, 2012, 09:20:26 AM
Beg to differ, think you are wrong there. Sure, stock suspensions are better now than in the past but the "better" is usually in the ability to tune them. Suspensions have worked basically the same since Simons and Fox developed the cartridge fork in the '80's. Fox Air shocks from the '80's perform just as well as today's - even twin shocks.Yep no doubt the old stuff is plush but i'm talking MX on modern tracks with big jumps and high speed g outs, no way your old school fox twin shocks gonna perform as well as modern suspension.
I was out this weekend on my (new to me) KTM. I could barely ride it around our track. Even though the oil level and spring rates were correct for me, the initial part of the stroke was too harsh. A few minutes at the truck and I had it all dialed in. All my buddies, wanting to try the 2-stroke thought the suspension was the best they had ridden.
That is very different from when I went out there with my '80 Can-Am. With that, I had to take it back to the shop to disassemble, change the oil and change the nitrogen pressure to get it close. All done, the Can-Am works just as well as the almost 30 year newer KTM.
I then rode the 250F of one of those buddies and gave up after one lap. Not that it was a 4$, but that all those knobs and adjustments must have confused him. I'd take the Can-Am of that anyday!
I'm talking 90's to today even, you can hit much bigger obstacles alot faster with new suspension.
Post by: VintageBlueSmoke on May 28, 2012, 09:28:21 AM
What I miss from newer bikes is the easy clutches and disc brakes.
Post by: TotalNZ on May 28, 2012, 11:02:41 AM
I don't know, I run mid-pack on today's tracks against younger men on modern bikes with that old Can-Am. I do all the jumps and attack the track just like they do.Well you've got me there, just cause i'm slower on my old bike doesn't mean everyone is. I'm thinking you're quite the talented rider though.
What I miss from newer bikes is the easy clutches and disc brakes.
Post by: VintageBlueSmoke on May 28, 2012, 11:36:55 AM
I just think too many riders put too much emphasis on the machine. In the local races, I reckon that I could improve my lap times from my Can-Am by:
1 second (per lap) for using a modern engine (no performance fade at the end of the moto)
1 second (per lap) for having a modern (easy pull) clutch - I often don't use the clutch in the corners...just too tired.
2 second (per lap) for disk brakes
That alone would put me in the top 5 with occasional podiums. Give me more adjustment to better tune the suspension, and I might be able to prolong my racing well into my 50's.
Post by: MetalMike1982 on May 28, 2012, 02:33:54 PM
Im gonna try and find it so I can post it .
Post by: luthier269 on May 29, 2012, 05:22:49 AM
Post by: Super Trucker on May 29, 2012, 07:49:07 AM
I just did topends, never replaced the clutch plates or the crank bearings, but I changed trans.oil every ride and ran 110 leaded fuel, new honda piston every 10 hrs or less. The guy I bought it from said they competed in hill climbs, the cylinder was ported by NSR north shore racing, they built engines for the GP guys. In 92 I bought a new RM 125 a great bike, didn,t pull like the 87 tho.
Post by: scotty dog on May 29, 2012, 09:55:03 AM
Post by: MetalMike1982 on May 29, 2012, 01:07:02 PM
Mike where in Florida do you live? Last year we were at Dade City MX and Tim Early who is an old local pro raced a 1981 YZ465 he is about 50 and hole shot the start against new 450's led most of the race but a nut fell of of the head and the head gasket stated to leak so he puled off. There is a sandy woop section in the back and the YZ just flew threw them.
That sounds like the same guy I saw in the video . I'm in Crystal River and usually go to dade city 3 to 4 . I wish I would have seen that old beast in real life . That guy was a bad mofo .
Post by: Recovered on May 29, 2012, 01:13:16 PM
Post by: Mofo on May 30, 2012, 01:39:17 AM
Print out that dyno plot of the 250SX dyno'd with the 250F, and pull it out and show it to them the next time someone uses the term "upgrade".
"upgrade" to a bike with 15 less horepower, 25more lbs, and half the service life.
people are just fucking stupid, there's no way else to explain it.
+1
Very well said Bro.