Would an 89 be vintage?:) with pics

[wexy21]

It wasn't too old when I rode it...but I guess you could say it's a future classic!  By far my favorite year.  87 was a better bike many would say...but not for it's looks.  Anyway, I raced this in 125 C and schoolboy.

[JETZcorp]

Well, technically vintage usually ends in 1974, which is picked up through 1982 (or so, depending on when your preferred brand went water-cooled and/or monoshock) by the Evolution class.  After that, it's pretty well considered limbo for the moment.  For all practical purposes, though, 1989 was a long-ass time ago.

[opfermanmotors]

1989 is a brand new bike

[wexy21]

Does that mean it's still under warranty?

[JETZcorp]

Holy shit, Tobyeo's here!  Anyway, the vintage/non-vintage thing really depends on how you want to measure it.  In terms of performance and practical difference, the '89 is going to be so close to a new bike that you might as well call it new.  There have been some small changes, and the rest is marketing and "bike fashion."  The difference between a 1989 bike and a 2009 bike is about as much as between a 1974 and a 1976.  Doesn't that just put today's "development" into perspective?

[Rota Ash]

they should call bike's from the 80's retro, as far a devolopement i beg to differ, just went riding with my mates 1996 CR 250 and my 2002 RM 250 and the bike's are worlds apart, it felt like jumping from an XR250 to a CR125 !!

[JETZcorp]

Try riding a '74 bike then going to a '76.  It'll be like the difference between a day in a washing machien and a day lounging on the beach.  Besides, in terms of real weight the two bikes you're comparing are really quite similar.  If we go way back to 1986 and look at that crusty old ancient CR250, we see the weight is 221.  Incidentally, that's identical to the 1980 CR250.  The '02 Suzuki is 211.  That's undoubtedly an improvement (and one that's entirely offset by a single Caribbean cruise), but there were 22 years for that change to be made.  But the crazy part is that most of that is just Suzuki being better than Honda.  The '86 RM was 213, and the RM250's been that way since '82.

So yes, there has been some changes and innovation, but I say it's still negligible compared to what we (we, meaning people other than me) saw in the '70s.  That was the age when bikes lost 70lbs in one decade, while doubling horsepower and tripling suspension travel.  Sure, a lot of that was thanks to the two-stroke revolution, but hey, what's the point of a revolution if you can't show off about it?

Cry Baby! (HD)

(^^ This is less than 15 years before my Kawasaki 120.  Now we can talk about innovation. ^^)

[dogger315]

1996 CR 250 and my 2002 RM 250 and the bike's are worlds apart, it felt like jumping from an XR250 to a CR125 !!

That difference could be due to so many things, I wouldn't know where to start.

IMO, if you were to compare a brand new '96 CR250 to a brand new '02 RM250, the differences
would amount to personal preference and brand loyalty.  I race a well sorted steel framed CR on
a regular basis and when I switch from it to any later model aluminum frame bike, the only difference
I really notice is the newer bikes are less bulky in the middle.  Not faster, not better suspended and not
better handlers.  Other than switching to aluminum frames (and many will argue the benefits of that),
forward development on 125 and 250 two stroke MX bikes ended by 2000 for all intents and purposes,
just like it ended in 1990 for the 500s.  To tell the truth, I believe the current design had reached the
limit of it's development.  Look at the 2Ts that are still being sold by Yamaha and KTM.  The motors are
marvels, the suspension plush and the handling is sweet.  Whats needs to be improved?

dogger


 

[JETZcorp]

I'm very skeptical of claims that X technology has reached its zenith.  In Michael Crichton's Timeline, there's a preface or whatever you call it noting that at the beginning of the 20th century, it was thought that science had basically discovered all that was left to be discovered.  Only a small number of innovations, such as the airplane, remained to be found.  Of course, this thought was soon smashed by the reality of the century, which was marked by a level of discovery unparalleled in all of mankind.  Here's a statistic for you.  Every four years, the amount of technical information that is generated by humanity equals the total amount of technical information created in all the history of time before it.

So, what causes our racing technology to stagnate compared with the rate of development before?  Regulation might be a cause - that's surely what stopped unfathomable development of Group B rally cars.  It's also possible that it's a cultural difference.  At risk of being branded a racist by some excessively guilty-feeling white guy, I think it's very curious that all the big developments stopped coming right around the time when the Europeans stopped making bikes.  Long-travel suspension, the two-stroke revolution, and even water cooling came about during the era when the European manufacturers were still in bidness, even if the latter was right at the end of said era.  What's changed since then?  Disc brakes I'll give you, that's important, although KTM blazed that trail.  Upside-down forks which make the heavy part of the system move with the wheel  (that's bad) and cause a national disaster when a fork seal is blown, that sucks in my book.  Aluminum frames, we've covered that.  Oh, I've got it!  Bold New Graphics!  I knew the Japanese gave us a big innovation!

I guess that's my rant for the day.  Sorry if it comes off a little confrontational or anything, but that's just how it looks to me.  I'm open to anyone who can elucidate and argument to show I'm wrong, but for the moment I still say our bikes deserve to be faster than they are now.  Or at the very least, they should be faster than they were in 1983, and according to Super Hunky, they're just not.

[JohnN]

You guys bring up a very good point.... the limits on technology... self-imposed or some kind of "conspiracy"?

The truth is that people scoffed at some of new innovations. It's kind of funny, but in today's society people are more conservative than they were in the past..

Take JETZcorp as an example... he prefers the older machines, there is nothing wrong with it, it's just his preference...

He's a young guy and is on the cutting edge when it comes to virtual reality motocross simulations, but prefers his actual motocross machines air-cooled and older than 1982!!



When the KTM "future" bike was posted on this and other sites, the hate poured out was absolutely mind-boggling! The same with the electric bike, which turned away from the idea of an electric bike and totally towards everything that is wrong in the world.

Is it that technology moves too fast? Or is it that consumers are only willing to go so far outside the norm?

An interesting topic. Unfortunately there are many more questions than answers...

Oh... and by the way, the ROKON had disc brakes in the 1970's as standard equipment. They may have been on dirt bikes before then, but I don't know about it..

[JETZcorp]

I think the main reason people would hate that bike is because it's ugly as hell.  It commits the Honda Insight Tragedy, by making something with new and progressive technology actually LOOK new and progressive.  I think people are more willing to accept new technology than they are new styling.  For example, the Dodge Charger Daytona, with it's aerodynamic nose cone and 3' wing, sold like crap compared to regular Chargers in 1969, even though it destroyed everything in its path in racing.  People just didn't like the way it looked.  Now granted, the Daytona looked the way it did purely for aerodynamic reasons, but the consumer didn't particularly care about details.  Buyers want both performance and something that appeals to them visually.  It may be important to note that until 2000 or so when bike styling froze in place for some reason, the progression of appearance was fairly constant.  Things like plastic gas tanks, up-pipes, and even plastic fenders came in gradually, and it even took quite a long time for the bike-makers to stop hiding the radiators behind number plates.  It was all very gradual, even as the technological progression fluctuated.  I guarantee that if you went back to 1980 with a brand new YZF, it would receive just as much hate as that KTM did today.  Also, have you considered that maybe the idea of a 235lb 125 two-stroke might have had something to do with it?

[dogger315]

I didn't say that 2T MX bikes have reached the limit in development, I said the current design
of 2T MX bikes have reached the limit in development.  Not being a visionary, I can't imagine
what could be done with the next generation of 2T MX bikes if there was the will to develop
them.

My other point is I can't imagine riding anything better than what is already available.  Having
come up from twin shock, drum brake, air cooled dinosaurs to the state-of-the-art equipment
today, I have seen the limiting factor switch from the bike to the rider. 

I'm just thankful I was around to see and experience the evolution of MX thus far.

dogger

[JETZcorp]

That all makes sense.  I do think it's plausible that the current status quo's like forks attached to a steering head, engine in a frame cradle, etc may be fundamentally limited.  I certainly support any manufacturer taking a stab at something different, but they are going to have to deal with consumer taste when it's introduced.  Ultimately, if they make some ugly bike that owns everything and wins a ton of championships (YZ400F style) then I think it may switch the market taste over, after some time.