Count another 2-Stroke Convert, Maybe, need your help.

[TotalNZ]

If you want a bike that's totally contemporary, take your '86 Maico and glue some modern plastic on it.  No one will be able to tell the difference, except for the fact that it's got a small, strong, and easily weldable steel frame.  I just don't get the automatic association that old = uncompetitive.  The peak power is roughly the same, while the delivery of power and handling are ranked equal- or superior-to modern standards by many accounts.  And, you'll have water cooling, disc brakes, monoshock, etc.  The only thing you're missing is a power valve, which doesn't seem to be necessary if you look at the numbers.  The only obstacle I see to being competitive on a 25 year-old bike is any rules that might prohibit its use in whatever races you're doing.  I have no idea if that's on the books in amateur racing, but I know it is for professional racing.

But, if a large number in the "Year:" line and super-pointy pieces of plastic are worth paying the order of magnitude difference in price between a new bike and an old one, then I recommend getting in line for the new Maico 250.  It takes a good engine and turns it into a God engine.  54 horsepower, and reportedly very linear and easy-to-control.  You won't be able to have it sitting in a crate in your garage by tomorrow morning, and there is likely a fairly hefty premium over other contemporary 250s, but it's the ultimate weapon in the 250 class.  It should be smooth enough on the showroom floor that you won't have to de-tune it, and you'll have as much, if not more peak power than a 450F.

Have you ridden anything late model JETZcorp? the difference in suspension and brakes between my 94 CR and my 08 TM is like night and day

[JETZcorp]

i have a feeling that the claimed 54 horsepower is measured at the sales brochure not the rear wheel. as far as an old bike being competitive with modern machines, it will depend on the track and the rider. i've been to a few vintage races and even raced one and they basically cut out big sections of the track because the old bikes can't take the pounding that the modern track obstacles dish out. at least that's what they do here in the midwest with the vintage races i went to.

Well, even if the 54 is a bhp number and not rear-wheel, it certainly means very big power.  Even a 20% loss from the transmission renders it as powerful as a YZ, and you still get the smooth Maico-style power.

And as for the terrain on vintage tracks, there are a few good reasons for it.  First, is that most of the riders who participate in vintage racing are significantly older than the average modern motocross racer.  Old knees and ligaments and such don't necessarily like jumping, whether it be on the track or in the kitchen.  Also, "vintage" motocross is not a homogeneous event.  There are bikes in attendance contemporary to my 120, many of them heavy British four-strokes, with afterthought suspension.  Even the more modern mid-70s two-strokes only have four inches in the back or so, and were made to blast around rough tracks like Carlsbad with top athletes aboard who used their legs as suspension.  Post-vintage, meaning long-travel, air-cooled, dual-shock bikes of the late '70s and early '80s, have all the travel of a new bike (more, in some cases, they got a bit crazy).  This has been a major point of contention in the community, because there's a perception that the crazy post-vintage machines are creating incentive for vintage races to occur at more modern, challenging courses, leaving the short-travel bikes out to dry.  There was at least one race in California that was brutal in this way.  AHRMA's strong anti-post-vintage stance was one of, if not the major reason alternatives like Hammer and Tongs came into popularity.

The sort of bike I'm recommending hails from a time AFTER the post-vintage bikes.  This is a water-cooled, disc-braked, mono-shocked motorcycle that was made for the changing face of motocross, as it became more about Supercross stadium racing and big-air jumps.  Granted, it wasn't like motocross now, in which a rider spends more time in the air than a commercial pilot, but it's on the way.  Some time spent adjusting the suspension to suit your needs, and perhaps even replacing the brakes (remember the '490 with a front disc?) would do a lot to bring the '86 into 2010.

And like I've said before, I could certainly be wrong.  I'm not in suspension engineering and I don't know what sort of advancements have been made in the last 20 years that couldn't be largely made up for by some TLC.  However, I do know that very little was done between the end of post-vintage (first monoshocks) and 1990 or so, because the magazine tests from that time indicate a general distaste for the lack of progress being made.  All the bike-makers trying a new rising-rate, said to be better than last year... except next year they make it the same as three years before, then go the other way, then back again, and so on.  I'm not saying that's what's happening today, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised.  I mean, we're already used to everyone giving us "a reinforced chassis for more rigidity" and then "a chassis re-engineered for more flex where it counts" next year.  I just imagine the people in the engineering rooms are sitting with feet on desk thinking, "Well, I have to change something."

I invite any suspension guru to explain what makes the modern equipment better.  I've heard dozens of people say "it's better," but not one has actually said why or how.  I'm not saying this to sound smug or superior, I genuinely want to know if there's been a major improvement, and if so, how so.

[Hondacrrider]

i have a feeling that the claimed 54 horsepower is measured at the sales brochure not the rear wheel. as far as an old bike being competitive with modern machines, it will depend on the track and the rider. i've been to a few vintage races and even raced one and they basically cut out big sections of the track because the old bikes can't take the pounding that the modern track obstacles dish out. at least that's what they do here in the midwest with the vintage races i went to.

Well, even if the 54 is a bhp number and not rear-wheel, it certainly means very big power.  Even a 20% loss from the transmission renders it as powerful as a YZ, and you still get the smooth Maico-style power.

And as for the terrain on vintage tracks, there are a few good reasons for it.  First, is that most of the riders who participate in vintage racing are significantly older than the average modern motocross racer.  Old knees and ligaments and such don't necessarily like jumping, whether it be on the track or in the kitchen.  Also, "vintage" motocross is not a homogeneous event.  There are bikes in attendance contemporary to my 120, many of them heavy British four-strokes, with afterthought suspension.  Even the more modern mid-70s two-strokes only have four inches in the back or so, and were made to blast around rough tracks like Carlsbad with top athletes aboard who used their legs as suspension.  Post-vintage, meaning long-travel, air-cooled, dual-shock bikes of the late '70s and early '80s, have all the travel of a new bike (more, in some cases, they got a bit crazy).  This has been a major point of contention in the community, because there's a perception that the crazy post-vintage machines are creating incentive for vintage races to occur at more modern, challenging courses, leaving the short-travel bikes out to dry.  There was at least one race in California that was brutal in this way.  AHRMA's strong anti-post-vintage stance was one of, if not the major reason alternatives like Hammer and Tongs came into popularity.

The sort of bike I'm recommending hails from a time AFTER the post-vintage bikes.  This is a water-cooled, disc-braked, mono-shocked motorcycle that was made for the changing face of motocross, as it became more about Supercross stadium racing and big-air jumps.  Granted, it wasn't like motocross now, in which a rider spends more time in the air than a commercial pilot, but it's on the way.  Some time spent adjusting the suspension to suit your needs, and perhaps even replacing the brakes (remember the '490 with a front disc?) would do a lot to bring the '86 into 2010.

And like I've said before, I could certainly be wrong.  I'm not in suspension engineering and I don't know what sort of advancements have been made in the last 20 years that couldn't be largely made up for by some TLC.  However, I do know that very little was done between the end of post-vintage (first monoshocks) and 1990 or so, because the magazine tests from that time indicate a general distaste for the lack of progress being made.  All the bike-makers trying a new rising-rate, said to be better than last year... except next year they make it the same as three years before, then go the other way, then back again, and so on.  I'm not saying that's what's happening today, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised.  I mean, we're already used to everyone giving us "a reinforced chassis for more rigidity" and then "a chassis re-engineered for more flex where it counts" next year.  I just imagine the people in the engineering rooms are sitting with feet on desk thinking, "Well, I have to change something."

I invite any suspension guru to explain what makes the modern equipment better.  I've heard dozens of people say "it's better," but not one has actually said why or how.  I'm not saying this to sound smug or superior, I genuinely want to know if there's been a major improvement, and if so, how so.

Now, I will tell you right now, I am by no means a suspension guru. Not at all. Although, I have ridden a fair share of bike, old and new. By far, my favorite suspension to WORK on, is off of a 1989 cr125. The this was so easy. You had to just loosen some bolts, and withing 2 minutes you could pull out the spring, and the oil drainage on the suspension was super easy as welll, plus, no clicker adjustments, it was all simply done with air. It was all so simple, it was simply refreshing, that is why the 89 125 is one of my favorite bikes by far. Now, as for it's performance, the suspension just does not measure up to new up side down forks. Although, I don't think this has to do with the abilities of the suspensio it self, I think it has to do with the fact that a 14 year tuned the suspension. But it was very harsh at times, where as the rm125's(2003) was nice and plush, and the rmz 250's suspension(although soft) did not dive, and was consistent. That is what I know, the suspension has improved somewhat, but, not as much as the magazines say, Transworld motocross says the suspension on the 2001 cr125 is super out dated, which I have to dis agree with.

[TotalNZ]

dual chambers were a big step forward in performance i reckon, The internals on my CR are totally different than the 50mm marzocchi's on my TM. Thats another point, the diameters have increased greatly no doubt having an effect on how the valving works and the oil capacity. Also the internal's and sliders have special low friction coatings on the late model bikes. i'm no suspension expert but like i said the difference between my 2 bikes suspension is huge.

[JohnN]

While I am no suspension guru, I can safely say that suspension has improved tremendously since the 1970's and 1980's. This is based on actually riding and racing bikes from the different eras, not based on magazine reviews or hearsay.

JETZcorp we get it you prefer the older machines, but two things to keep in mind, you do not race motocross nor do you even ride on a motocross track, so some of your thought experiments (what Einstein called them) although interesting have no basis in reality. Not trying to give you a hard time... but really, thinking you could race a 1986 Maico against modern bikes?

When you compare machines, at least in my mind you need to consider if racers of equal caliber could get around the track using the two different bikes. After working with a Pro Level rider I can tell you one thing, they are sensitive to the slightest adjustments on their machines. Even one click of the compression on the forks will be noticeable to them.

This adjust-ability does not exist on the older machines at all.

In addition, even the stock new forks are not set up for a Pro level racer... there are many changes that need to be made and they are not in any way "universal". Meaning that depending on the riding ability of the racer in question and the track (s) they are riding on, the adjustments will change, sometimes in a huge way.

My illusion is that you probably changed your fork oil, sometime in this latest century. Which is what I used to do as well, but in no way does that compare to actual real racers.

Obviously I have left out handling and power delivery. But these as well must be tailored to the individual racer. Certain track surfaces will require sometimes radical power delivery characteristics. In a way the magazines are mis-leading in so many ways... sure they test the machines stock and give their feedback, but no real racers ride their bikes stock.

Honestly the small things are very important and adjust ability is a must have when your talking about racing at the highest levels.

Of course non of this is necessary if you are racing your friends in the woods... but I think we are talking about racing.

Just my two cents!

[SachsGS]

A 1986 Maico is one of the last of the old school natural terrain high speed motocrossers and was never designed for the artificiality of a modern motocross track.I mean,how many of you would dare race a modern motocrosser offroad without a steering damper?As well,a lot of those early inverted fork bikes were truly awful suspension wise,the early 90s Honda CR's that I raced were in many ways inferior to my older bikes.The modern Brembos that come on Euro bikes like Tms and Maicos are superior to anything out there - I guess what I'm trying to say is that never mind technological progress,the sport has changed so much that you have to be careful what you compare.

[JohnN]

Quote from the May 2010 issue of Motocross Action...

MXPERTS - Tech: Don't live in the Past...

Dear MXA,
I rode motocross in the '70s. My last bike was a Maico 400. I haven't ridden in 30 years, and I have the bug to ride again. I am looking for a used, two-stroke, air-cooled Open bike, but I can't find a used one that isn't prue junk. Please help me with some sound advice.

Stop looking for worn-out, old, Open bikes and buy a used Yamaha YZ250 from 2003 on up. You may think you want an Open bike, but a modern 250cc two-stroke is more powerful, better jetted and crisper-running than your old Maico ever dreamed of being.

[SachsGS]

Was that the same Jody Weisel that gave the 1981 Maico 490 such a glowing review? I agree and acknowledge the dangers of living in the past,the problem is where do you draw the line - there are many in the sport and industry who would argue that anything non four stroke is old school.I think the YZ250 is an excellent choice, it's just that the pendulum has swung so far to the fourstroke's advantage - where's the edge that is going to give the effort a fighting chance?

[JETZcorp]

If you want something like a Maico 400, and end up with a new 250, I don't think it'll work out too well.  While MXA makes a valid point about peak horsepower (the 400 always posted very low numbers), the 400 has a power delivery that would make you swear you're on a four-stroke, except for the fact that it's quiet and doesn't like to stall.  They're made for torque, not for horsepower.  It's a different game.

Anyway, John is telling us that the old suspensions weren't adjustable.  This seems a little weird to me, because the first time I heard of "clickers," it was in a '70s YZ250 review, where they were complaining about how hard it was to get at them because the shock was under the seat.

"The spring rate is well chosen for most riders, and the separate rebound and compression damping adjusters can be set to most riders' liking. But while the rear suspension works well over any terrain, it lacks the silky, magic-carpet feel that made riders rave about the fork."
Honda CR250 ~ 1986

"The Swedish-built shocks have several noteworthy features, such as independently adjustable compression and rebound damping, nearly infinitely adjustable damping, compressible bump foams to help ease the shock of bottoming, and remote reservoirs with full-floating pistons."
Husqvarna 250CR ~ 1980

"The dual-spring shocks use special take-apart spherical joints at their top mounts, have five spring preload settings and provide an even ten inches of rear wheel travel. In addition, the shocks are completely rebuildable and can have their compression and rebound damping rates adjusted independently by changing the appropriate spring washers on the damper piston."
Husqvarna 390CR ~ 1978

Of course, I'm confident that new suspension is far more adjustable than these examples.  And I've never said that an old bike will be better than a new one for hard-core professional competition motocross.  That would be stupid.  But, I do think that for amateurs who haven't ridden for very long, or are just starting, something old-school can be made to work passably, especially given the greatly reduced cost.  If you want to go out and blitzkrieg the world, then by all means, spend a couple grand and get something off the show-room.  But if I may use an analogy, there's no sense buying $4000 paints and imported Italian brushes if you're just going to follow along with a Bob Ross DVD.

[Hondacrrider]

If you want something like a Maico 400, and end up with a new 250, I don't think it'll work out too well.  While MXA makes a valid point about peak horsepower (the 400 always posted very low numbers), the 400 has a power delivery that would make you swear you're on a four-stroke, except for the fact that it's quiet and doesn't like to stall.  They're made for torque, not for horsepower.  It's a different game.

Anyway, John is telling us that the old suspensions weren't adjustable.  This seems a little weird to me, because the first time I heard of "clickers," it was in a '70s YZ250 review, where they were complaining about how hard it was to get at them because the shock was under the seat.

"The spring rate is well chosen for most riders, and the separate rebound and compression damping adjusters can be set to most riders' liking. But while the rear suspension works well over any terrain, it lacks the silky, magic-carpet feel that made riders rave about the fork."
Honda CR250 ~ 1986

"The Swedish-built shocks have several noteworthy features, such as independently adjustable compression and rebound damping, nearly infinitely adjustable damping, compressible bump foams to help ease the shock of bottoming, and remote reservoirs with full-floating pistons."
Husqvarna 250CR ~ 1980

"The dual-spring shocks use special take-apart spherical joints at their top mounts, have five spring preload settings and provide an even ten inches of rear wheel travel. In addition, the shocks are completely rebuildable and can have their compression and rebound damping rates adjusted independently by changing the appropriate spring washers on the damper piston."
Husqvarna 390CR ~ 1978

Of course, I'm confident that new suspension is far more adjustable than these examples.  And I've never said that an old bike will be better than a new one for hard-core professional competition motocross.  That would be stupid.  But, I do think that for amateurs who haven't ridden for very long, or are just starting, something old-school can be made to work passably, especially given the greatly reduced cost.  If you want to go out and blitzkrieg the world, then by all means, spend a couple grand and get something off the show-room.  But if I may use an analogy, there's no sense buying $4000 paints and imported Italian brushes if you're just going to follow along with a Bob Ross DVD.

I agree, I think, that if you are not the fastest rider, and you are only in the beginners class, get a bit of an older bike, maybe not an 86, but maybe you should get an 86, Why not? It's all in what you enjoy, if you enjoy riding old motocross bikes at new tracks, and making people laugh, so be it, I think that for some reason, the old stuff is classified as junk, but, I don't think that is necassarily true for your average rider, the old stuff is refreshingly simple

[JohnN]

Of course, I'm confident that new suspension is far more adjustable than these examples.  And I've never said that an old bike will be better than a new one for hard-core professional competition motocross.  That would be stupid.  But, I do think that for amateurs who haven't ridden for very long, or are just starting, something old-school can be made to work passably, especially given the greatly reduced cost.  If you want to go out and blitzkrieg the world, then by all means, spend a couple grand and get something off the show-room.  But if I may use an analogy, there's no sense buying $4000 paints and imported Italian brushes if you're just going to follow along with a Bob Ross DVD.

I agree 1000%...

If you are racing at the highest levels, the new stuff is much better. Most likely you would get hurt or break something important racing an older machine at the highest levels of racing.

On the other hand if you are just riding with friends and not competing, any machine with two wheels will fit the bill. Although after you get a certain age machine of whatever brand, parts availability could pose a problem.

For instance 7 years ago when I restored my 1980 YZ125, there was quite a large supply of certain parts still available from Yamaha and dealers... those parts are all gone now. The problem with that is that if a bunch of people want that part, they get very expensive.... just keep that in mind when purchasing an older machine.

You guys do realize that this is what I have been trying to say all along... right??

Almost every single time I write about something, it has to do with racing modern motocross.. okay?

[admiral]

i enjoy Jetzcorp's post because he reminds me of one of my riding buddies who also has a hard on for old bikes and is too young to have ridden them when they were new or even 10 years old. i will be honest, i'm not a old bike fan unless you count admiring nicely done restorations. i can't imagine trying to resurrect a 20-30 year old beat down machine to ride it. it reminds me of the old phrase "polishing a turd". the time and money it takes to do it right i would rather spend on riding. i do understand restoring a bike from your youth but to use it as your main ride, well not for me. i hear people talk about old machines and how great they were and laugh to myself. most of what i hear is from people who don't ride anymore and really have no idea what they are talking about. the reality of it is there were alot of machines that were junk when they were new let alone when they got some time on them. i know, i rode them. even on rough natural terrain tracks old bikes (1970's era) aren't that great. the suspension and frames are over powered the rougher it gets and they deflect all over the place. whenever i hear people bench racing about old bikes extolling their virtues and deriding modern MX tracks, i offer to let them ride my old Maico 490. none ever take me up on it though. they just got done saying how competitive the bike would be and now don't want to try it. i do think mid to late '80's machines in good shape (are there any out there?) could be competitive in local MX races.

[TotalNZ]

JETZcorp, i have to ask, have you ridden a late model 250?
And i have to disagree about an older bike being alright for an average rider in club mx still.
I've got a 94 CR 250 which i did race up until recently and the suspension was utter crap on today's tracks even at club level. I wouldn't dream of throwing it at what i'll jump the TM off and fast rough straights forget about it. modern bikes are way way better for pro's or casual racers like myself. Even in the bush and on the trails the old suspenders on the CR are woefully inadequate and thats a 94, i'd hate to go back any further and expect to be competitive with anything modern

[JETZcorp]

That's another good thing about a Maico, the parts-availability is relatively high.  Many of the components (though certainly not all of them) in an '86 are shared with a '10.  Besides, the low up-front cost makes up for a lot of parts expenses one might encounter.  Just don't try and turn a rolling chassis into a 501.  That would hurt the wallet a bit.  I've never restored a bike, and honestly wouldn't want to.  It's a lot of expense for not enough return, when you could easily spend half as much and get a bike that someone else restored.

And I don't know what's wrong with your '94, because I know I can hit just about any bump at any speed with a Husky and it'll be fine.  I've already told the story of my dad blitzing a washed-out section of road at 70.  That's not an exaggeration, and having ridden that bike, I know it's capable of it (mine's not so much, the suspension isn't in as good of condition as his for whatever reason, even though his is 3yr older).  This is one of those sections that you slow way down for in a truck, to walking-speed or less.  And when he hit it, it wasn't a hold-on-for-your-life situation, it was like one of those old Cadillacs, where you could run over a cow and not even put a ripple in your beer.

Each bike is different, each good at some things (well, usually) and bad for others.  Even within bikes of the same make, model, and year, you can encounter massive differences.  I've played around a bit with my uncle's Husky, which is pretty much identical to mine except the larger displacement.  Obviously the engine feels very different, but it turns out that the steering, seat, suspension, and bars are all very different.  That's the thing with old bikes, they've had a lot of time to gather their own personality as people add and replace things.  2010 bikes will be the same way in 30 years (if they survive).  I guess all I'm saying with this paragraph is that in the world of "old" bikes, you can win some and lose some, just depending on who owned it last.  Maybe the last guy who owned it was a some clown who thought zip-ties were the cure to all woes.  Or, maybe it was the personal bike of a local champion rider.  We've owned some of both.