CR500 Drag Racing Questions - TIA
steven...@my-deja.com
my just-restored 86 CR500 as a 1/8 mile drag bike (at a commercial
asphalt strip near here). Not even ridden since the restore, it has
an FMF pipe and the Boyesen Rad Valve installed. In the class it would
run they have everything from BMW bikes to snowmobiles with rollers and
shifter go-karts!
I did finally get the bike started after some help from the group (had
to straighten a dip in the fuel line and back out the pilot screw to 2
turns with choke off-- now it starts like a moped but doesn't sound
like one).
Does anyone have the slightest idea what kind of ET or trap speed it
would do (I weigh 160)? The closest set up I have seen to this is
the TT/SuperMotard bikes (http://supertt.com) and CR500 road racers a
few years ago.
Ideally I would like to find a used front and rear hub to lace up to
17, 18 , or 19" rims with steet tires permanently mounted and keep the
current wheels for off-road games. Apparently the 85-86 CRs all shared
at least the front hub, judging by the common rotor. Let me know if
you know of any for sale. The rear hub is, of course, a drum brake unit
from that period.
Any other helpful suggestions other than that's crazy I would be
interested to hear...
Steve
RK Tek LLC in Utah.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
steven...@my-deja.com
>
> RK Tek LLC in Utah.
>
>
o-ring head they sell for $275.
RK Tek is at:
http://www.geocities.com/rk_tek_custom/
Steve
Bob Mallard
how that would convert to 1/8ths...
an aussie magazine measured one at 2.8 seconds 0-100
only other rumour is that the trannies can't take ashpalt launch's very
well...
also you'll probably want to run wheelie bars if it rides anything like
mine!
--
Bob M
family MX photos http://www.yatala.freeservers.com
<steven...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8o4aun$qmt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
davidladd
>Ideally I would like to find a used front and rear hub to lace up to
>17, 18 , or 19" rims with steet tires permanently mounted and keep the
>current wheels for off-road games. Apparently the 85-86 CRs all shared
>at least the front hub, judging by the common rotor. Let me know if
>you know of any for sale. The rear hub is, of course, a drum brake unit
>from that period.
shit! you are one day too late. I just this morning took what was
left of my 85 CR500 to the dump, including both front and rear hubs...
bummer,
david.
CGFlyer
for a few years, I have to raise the BS flag real high on the CR5 doing 10 sec
1/4's . In the 1/8th, my Z1R would run 6.5sec and the Triple would run 7.5sec.
I was an average rider with good reaction times though they don't matter. A
friend with a more then adequately modified Yamaha RD400 could not touch the
500 no matter who he let try and beat it. Come on, 10 sec. in the 1/4 on a
single cylinder, That is about 130mph. The national record is 7.2 at 195 on a
Pro Stock drag bike.
Bob
CYCLEANS
could possibly get into the 8's.Most 600cc sportbikes with avg talent can get a
low 8 in the 1/8th.Of course there are exceptions to the rule...A high 8 sec
1/8th would roughly translate out into the high 13 sec range. To get below 9
secs in the 1/8th you will need to be running better then 77-78 mph.
Bob Mallard
"CYCLEANS" <cycl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000826010041...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
> I would guess a low to mid 9 sec range in the 1/8th.Depending on the start
you
Nope. chassis CR500's drop ALL the stock street bikes at our drags, they
make R1's look like R0.5's!!
heres a coupla of past Deja posts on the subject.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
> Rich Rohrich <rroh...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
> news:382781BB...@interaccess.com...
> >
> > Heck Mikeee,
> >
> > In the right chassis you can easily turns 10 second quarters on gas with
> > a CR500.
>
> I've always wondered about that. What is the right chassis? How does the
> clutch and transmission hold up to the hard launches? Is it consistent
enough
> for bracket racing? Have you built one? Any interesting stories or
tales?
>A few years back I helped a guy with a CR500 that he stuffed into a
semi-laydown RD350 drag >chassis. He went to great pains to keep the clutch
and trans alive. He magna fluxed all the trans parts >and hand finished all
the gears, shafts and forks. An air shifter and an ignition cut out help
keep things >alive. Balancing the crank assembly and carefull assembly made
for a fairly reliable package by >drag .race standards. He was turning easy
10.80s early in the development cycle. I lost track of him >when he moved
out of the area , but I heard he got it down in the 10.20s at some point.
>--
>Rich Rohrich
>Applied Fluid Dynamics
>rroh...@interaccess.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
even a stock CR500 in it's standard MX chassis with knobbies will outrun a
600 streetbike, it's got way more torque (+20%) and nearly half the
weight......
not many 600's will throttle wheelstand at 80mph like CR500's do!
Bob Mallard
"CGFlyer" <flyt"NOSPAM"ngneer@"NOSPAM"hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sqesl0...@corp.supernews.com...
> Haven drag raced a Kawi 500 H-1 triple 2 stroke and a Kawi Z1R bored to
1300cc
> for a few years, I have to raise the BS flag real high on the CR5 doing 10
sec
> 1/4's
you doubt R.R.???!!! I thought he had an impecable reputation in this
ng.....
>In the 1/8th, my Z1R would run 6.5sec and the Triple would run 7.5sec.
> I was an average rider with good reaction times though they don't matter.
A
> friend with a more then adequately modified Yamaha RD400 could not touch
the
> 500 no matter who he let try and beat it. Come on, 10 sec. in the 1/4 on
a
> single cylinder, That is about 130mph. The national record is 7.2 at 195
on a
> Pro Stock drag bike.
>
> Bob
>
Bob those are 70's/80's engine designs,if you know anything about the CR5 it
has an awesome reputatioon for making power & torque.....absolutely NOTHING
like a heavy H-1 or Z1R engine. And comparing to an RD400???
If CR5's can do 0-60mph in 2.8s (magazine test), surely 10.2s quarters are
possible.....
CYCLEANS
>make R1's look like R0.5's!!
Sure....lol. i've done a bit of drag racing in my life. R1's have aprox. 132
bhp weigh 385 lbs dry in street trim. Top speed for your Cr is under 100 mph.
high 12's are a big reach.R1's and similiar bikes are running over 125 mph in
the quarter and they have a hard time getting under 10.2's
CYCLEANS
>has an awesome reputatioon for making power & torque.....absolutely NOTHING
>like a heavy H-1 or Z1R engine. And comparing to an RD400???
>
>If CR5's can do 0-60mph in 2.8s (magazine test), surely 10.2s quarters are
>possible.....
>
>
>--
>Bob M
>family MX photos http://www.yatala.freeservers.com
>
and passed shortly thereafter by most sports bikes like they were tied to a
stump.
Brian McGarry
Bob Mallard wrote:
> > Haven drag raced a Kawi 500 H-1 triple 2 stroke and a Kawi Z1R bored to
> >1300cc for a few years, I have to raise the BS flag real high on the CR5
> doing >10 sec1/4's
>
> you doubt R.R.???!!! I thought he had an impecable reputation in this ng.....
Zig Heil R.R. mein RMDgod.
Bob Mallard
> >Nope. chassis CR500's drop ALL the stock street bikes at our drags, they
> >make R1's look like R0.5's!!
>
132
> bhp weigh 385 lbs dry in street trim. Top speed for your Cr is under 100
mph.
> high 12's are a big reach.R1's and similiar bikes are running over 125 mph
in
> the quarter and they have a hard time getting under 10.2's
here's the facts:
NOTE this is for STOCK bikes, a chassis CR5 would be substantially
better....
R1 : Torque 72.7lbs.ft, weight 451lbs+165lb rider
=8.47lbs/lbs.ft of torque
CR5: Torque 55.7lbs.ft, weight 232lbs+165lb rider
=7.127lbs/lbs.ft of torque
GUESS WHAT? the CR5 with rider carries less weight per lbs.ft of torque IN
STOCK FORM than an R1!!!!
(Torque determines acceleration), so a chassis CR5 should have no trouble
seeing off an R1 at the strip.....
sources:
http://www.hondampe.com.au look under motorcycles/competition/CR500 '00
http://www.mcnews.com/articles/yzfstats.htm for R1 stats
http://mdmetric.com/tech/torqcht.htm for torqueconversion
http://www.off-road.com/hummer/tech/power.html for a general discussion on
torque
CGFlyer
> Bob those are 70's/80's engine designs
I beleive the man said he too was running an 86 CR500
>if you know anything about the CR5 it has an awesome reputatioon for making
power & torque
I am sure it does...On the MX track for the 3 seconds at a time it is opened up
> If CR5's can do 0-60mph in 2.8s (magazine test),
What Mag? What Issue?
>surely 10.2s quarters are possible.....
Yep, but not for the CR5, If it were possible and such a reliable motor,
why don't we see more of these on the track. I started in 1982 and have
NEVER heard of one.
These are actual numbers as reported by Cycle World for a few 99 machines
Honda CBR929RR
Dry weight 413 lb.
0-60 mph 2.75 sec.
1/4-mile 10.35 sec. @ 137 mph
Horsepower 131 bhp @ 10,500 rpm
Torque 69 ft.-lbs. @ 8750 rpm
Top speed 168.0 mph
Kawasaki ZX-9R
Dry weight 434 lb.
0-60 mph 2.76 sec.
1/4-mile 10.39 sec. @ 137 mph
Horsepower 130 bhp @ 11,250 rpm
Torque 70.8 ft.-lbs. @ 9100 rpm
Top speed 169.2 mph
Yahama YZF-R1
Dry weight 415 lb.
0-60 mph 2.87 sec.
1/4-mile 10.36 sec. @ 138.2 mph
Horsepower 133 bhp @ 10,250 rpm
Torque 73.8 ft.-lbs. @ 8250 rpm
Top speed 167 mph
Just my opinion, with a little 2 cents to stir the pot.
Bob
Bob Mallard
> <Snipped>
>
> > Bob those are 70's/80's engine designs
>
> I beleive the man said he too was running an 86 CR500
ooops...
> >surely 10.2s quarters are possible.....
>
> Yep, but not for the CR5, If it were possible and such a reliable motor,
> why don't we see more of these on the track. I started in 1982 and have
> NEVER heard of one.
didn't say it was reliable!, merely quoted R.R. who used to have a lot of
support/respect here in rmd.
>
> These are actual numbers as reported by Cycle World for a few 99 machines
>
> Honda CBR929RR
> Dry weight 413 lb.
> 0-60 mph 2.75 sec.
> 1/4-mile 10.35 sec. @ 137 mph
> Horsepower 131 bhp @ 10,500 rpm
> Torque 69 ft.-lbs. @ 8750 rpm
> Top speed 168.0 mph
>
> Kawasaki ZX-9R
> Dry weight 434 lb.
> 0-60 mph 2.76 sec.
> 1/4-mile 10.39 sec. @ 137 mph
> Horsepower 130 bhp @ 11,250 rpm
> Torque 70.8 ft.-lbs. @ 9100 rpm
> Top speed 169.2 mph
>
> Yahama YZF-R1
> Dry weight 415 lb.
> 0-60 mph 2.87 sec.
> 1/4-mile 10.36 sec. @ 138.2 mph
> Horsepower 133 bhp @ 10,250 rpm
> Torque 73.8 ft.-lbs. @ 8250 rpm
> Top speed 167 mph
>
great figures!
interesting that all 3 are so close....
and I thought R1 was king at the strip, my '98 test had it 451lbs,
@10.19s...
http://www.mcnews.com/articles/yzfstats.htm
> Just my opinion, with a little 2 cents to stir the pot.
> Bob
>
.02c welcomed! , it's been a few days since the last all out sh*tfight in
rmd!
CYCLEANS
>
>NOTE this is for STOCK bikes, a chassis CR5 would be substantially
>better....
>
>R1 : Torque 72.7lbs.ft, weight 451lbs+165lb rider
>=8.47lbs/lbs.ft of torque
>
>CR5: Torque 55.7lbs.ft, weight 232lbs+165lb rider
>=7.127lbs/lbs.ft of torque
>
>GUESS WHAT? the CR5 with rider carries less weight per lbs.ft of torque IN
>STOCK FORM than an R1!!!!
>(Torque determines acceleration), so a chassis CR5 should have no trouble
>seeing off an R1 at the strip.....
>
>sources:
>http://www.hondampe.com.au look under motorcycles/competition/CR500 '00
>http://www.mcnews.com/articles/yzfstats.htm for R1 stats
>http://mdmetric.com/tech/torqcht.htm for torqueconversion
>http://www.off-road.com/hummer/tech/power.html for a general discussion on
>torque
>
>
wrong....LOL
Ted
applied determines acceleration. This is essentially power (work per unit
time). Here is something to consider. Two cars, "A" and "B". Both are
identical except for the engine and transmission. Car "A" has an engine
that produces 200 ft-lbs of torque at 1500 rpm. Car "B" has also has an
engine that also produces 200 ft-lbs of torque, but at 5000 rpm. Horsepower
is
equal to (torque X rpm)/5252. It terms of horsepower, Car "A" has 57 hp
((200 X 1500)/5252 = 57 hp). Car "B" has 190 hp ((200 X 5000)/5252 = 190
hp). If each car has a transmission designed for its engine, then Car "B"
will accelerate much faster than Car "A". This I can assure you of. This
is why you would not choose a diesel for racing.
Something else to consider. I can produce quite a bit of torque on my
bicycle. This is force applied to the pedals times the perpendicular moment
arm. For a few seconds, I can probably produce an average of 50 ft-lbs.
This is very close to the CR500. If your theory was correct, then I could
out accelerate the 500 since the total weight of bicycle and rider would be
much less than the 500 and rider! Of course this would not happen.
Finally, back in the mid '80's, Dirt Bike mag raced a CR500 against an
Interceptor 500. The CR was re-geared and the tires were changed. It did
beat the Interceptor, but it only ran in the mid 12's (if memory serves me
correctly). The CR (essentially unchanged) would certainly be no match for
a current 600 sport
bike, most of which now break into the 10's.
Ted
>here's the facts:
>
>NOTE this is for STOCK bikes, a chassis CR5 would be substantially
>better....
>
>R1 : Torque 72.7lbs.ft, weight 451lbs+165lb rider
>=8.47lbs/lbs.ft of torque
>
>CR5: Torque 55.7lbs.ft, weight 232lbs+165lb rider
>=7.127lbs/lbs.ft of torque
>
>GUESS WHAT? the CR5 with rider carries less weight per lbs.ft of torque IN
>STOCK FORM than an R1!!!!
>(Torque determines acceleration), so a chassis CR5 should have no trouble
>seeing off an R1 at the strip.....
>
Bob Mallard
"Ted" <tha...@snip.net> wrote in message
news:sqgqsba...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Something else to consider. I can produce quite a bit of torque on my
> bicycle. This is force applied to the pedals times the perpendicular
moment
> arm. For a few seconds, I can probably produce an average of 50 ft-lbs.
> This is very close to the CR500. If your theory was correct, then I could
if you can only produce it for a few seconds, then you must limit the CR5 to
a few seconds and therefore maybe you would win!. I recall horse vs human
races where the human would ALWAYS lead the horse for the first few
seconds.....
> Finally, back in the mid '80's, Dirt Bike mag raced a CR500 against an
> Interceptor 500. The CR was re-geared and the tires were changed. It did
> beat the Interceptor, but it only ran in the mid 12's (if memory serves me
> correctly). The CR (essentially unchanged) would certainly be no match
for
> a current 600 sport
> bike, most of which now break into the 10's.
>
> Ted
OK Ted, lets use your HP figures then......
R1, 451lbs, 130hp +165lb rider
=4.738lbs/hp
Chassis CR5,say 195lbs, 85HP (CR5's are 65HP stock,most tuners can get them
to 85),165lb rider
=4.235lbs/hp
HOLY SH*T BATMAN! the CR5 is STILL ahead even on Teds HP calculations!!!!
steven...@my-deja.com
Here are some posts from the DRAGBIKE.COM advice list:
---------
Steven.I had a buddy who bought a kaw kx-500 mid 80s and put 2
perfomance machine wheels/7inche rear slick, pipe,and air shifter and he
ran 7.0s-7teens.He did have some port work too.He weighed about 160-180
pounds and was very consistant.He won more $$$$oa that bike than he
did on his h-2.You will probably run high 80s to low 90s in the mph
department.Good luck!!David
---------
William R. Baxter
Friday, August 25, 2000 - 09:01 am
David Greathouse ran a KX500 in S/E and was very successful, ran in the
high 11's 1/4 mile, dont remember the 1/8th mile times. The bikes are a
natural for drag racing if the chassis is set up right, very good power
to weight ratio.
------
dave earll
Saturday, August 26, 2000 - 08:43 pm
hey guys,
in 1988, i rode a new {at the time) kx500 at palmdale raceway here in
cal, with a stock chassis and just a street tire on the rear. it went a
12.09 @ 119.00 mph!!! in the 1/4, it was a blast! it was for an article
in DIRTBIKE magazine. they took a thousand pics and we ran it until we
blew the motor up.
Bob Mallard
based on these figures, a chassis, air-shifted CR5 would realistically be
capable of 10.2s, just like Rich said. QED.
--
Bob M
family MX photos http://www.yatala.freeservers.com
<steven...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8o9vit$2i2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
CYCLEANS
slip anyone that could verify such hogwash. Are you asking me to believe 123
mph from a relatively stock Kx 500 in the 1/4 mile, and this same person is
used for facts to support this crap.A KX500 couldn't do 123mph falling off a
cliff......much less on a strip.
CYCLEANS
>> in 1988, i rode a new {at the time) kx500 at palmdale raceway here in
>> cal, with a stock chassis and just a street tire on the rear. it went a
>> 12.09 @ 119.00 mph!!! in the 1/4, it was a blast! it was for an article
>> in DIRTBIKE magazine.
What issue?Who wrote this hogwash?119mph huh?
CYCLEANS
>identical except for the engine and transmission. Car "A" has an engine
>that produces 200 ft-lbs of torque at 1500 rpm. Car "B" has also has an
>engine that also produces 200 ft-lbs of torque, but at 5000 rpm. Horsepower
>is
>equal to (torque X rpm)/5252. It terms of horsepower, Car "A" has 57 hp
>((200 X 1500)/5252 = 57 hp). Car "B" has 190 hp ((200 X 5000)/5252 = 190
>hp). If each car has a transmission designed for its engine, then Car "B"
>will accelerate much faster than Car "A". This I can assure you of. This
>is why you would not choose a diesel for racing.
>
>bicycle. This is force applied to the pedals times the perpendicular moment
>arm. For a few seconds, I can probably produce an average of 50 ft-lbs.
>This is very close to the CR500. If your theory was correct, then I could
>much less than the 500 and rider! Of course this would not happen.
>
>Interceptor 500. The CR was re-geared and the tires were changed. It did
>beat the Interceptor, but it only ran in the mid 12's (if memory serves me
>correctly). The CR (essentially unchanged) would certainly be no match for
>a current 600 sport
>bike, most of which now break into the 10's.
>
>Ted
>
>
>
>>
>>NOTE this is for STOCK bikes, a chassis CR5 would be substantially
>>better....
>>
>>R1 : Torque 72.7lbs.ft, weight 451lbs+165lb rider
>>=8.47lbs/lbs.ft of torque
>>
>>CR5: Torque 55.7lbs.ft, weight 232lbs+165lb rider
>>=7.127lbs/lbs.ft of torque
>>
>>GUESS WHAT? the CR5 with rider carries less weight per lbs.ft of torque IN
>>STOCK FORM than an R1!!!!
>>(Torque determines acceleration), so a chassis CR5 should have no trouble
>>seeing off an R1 at the strip.....
>>
Bob Mallard
Are you suggesting that Rich Rohrich and all of those guys who
independantly back this up AND use their full names (unlike you) are lying!
I sense a sore loser.......
Matt Porritt
You show me a CR500 that does at 10.2 ET...
0-60mph in 2.8 is bullshit again.
Ever seen a 10sec drag car?
They are FUCKING quick..
----------
In article <LNLp5.2766$lW1....@news1.rochd1.qld.optushome.com.au>, "Bob
Mallard" <bmal...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
> If CR5's can do 0-60mph in 2.8s (magazine test), surely 10.2s quarters are
> possible.....
Bob Mallard
"Matt Porritt" <porr...@anet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:newscache$zt5yzf$7sc@frodo...
> BULLSHIT!
> You show me a CR500 that does at 10.2 ET...
see posts above
> 0-60mph in 2.8 is bullshit again.
> Ever seen a 10sec drag car?
> They are FUCKING quick..
maybe in Kiwiland that's quick, at willowbank they do 4.83
@466KM/h(290mph) - that looks pretty quick....
top bike does around 6.47 qtr's.......
heck,even the B modified Kawa 750's do 8.86 qtrs @237Km/h(148mph)...
you gotta get out more Matt.....
CYCLEANS
>independantly back this up AND use their full names (unlike you) are lying!
Based on the quotes you posted hell yeah lying sacks of shit to be exact.
Ted
Bob Mallard wrote in message ...
>
>"Ted" <tha...@snip.net> wrote in message
>news:sqgqsba...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> Something else to consider. I can produce quite a bit of torque on my
>> bicycle. This is force applied to the pedals times the perpendicular
>moment
>> arm. For a few seconds, I can probably produce an average of 50 ft-lbs.
>> This is very close to the CR500. If your theory was correct, then I
could
>
>if you can only produce it for a few seconds, then you must limit the CR5
to
>a few seconds and therefore maybe you would win!. I recall horse vs human
>races where the human would ALWAYS lead the horse for the first few
>seconds.....
Picture me, on my bicycle, lined up next to a CR5 with same weight rider.
We both take off and accerate as hard as possible for 2 or 3 or 4sec...you
pick the number. Who do you think would be ahead after that time elapses?
Kind of a silly question huh? The primary purpose of my post was to correct
your statement that torque determines acceleration. Power, not torque,
determines acceleration.
Ted
>> Finally, back in the mid '80's, Dirt Bike mag raced a CR500 against an
>> Interceptor 500. The CR was re-geared and the tires were changed. It
did
>> beat the Interceptor, but it only ran in the mid 12's (if memory serves
me
>> correctly). The CR (essentially unchanged) would certainly be no match
>for
>> a current 600 sport
>> bike, most of which now break into the 10's.
>>
>> Ted
>
>OK Ted, lets use your HP figures then......
>
>R1, 451lbs, 130hp +165lb rider
>=4.738lbs/hp
>Chassis CR5,say 195lbs, 85HP (CR5's are 65HP stock,most tuners can get them
>to 85),165lb rider
>=4.235lbs/hp
>
>HOLY SH*T BATMAN! the CR5 is STILL ahead even on Teds HP calculations!!!!
>
>--
>Bob M
>family MX photos http://www.yatala.freeservers.com
First of all, I have no doubt that a heavily modified CR5 engine, in a
special chassis, could match the 1/4 mile time of an R1. Hell, use nitrous
or forced induction and its a no-brainer. As a matter of record though,
your numbers are slightly off. The dry weight (no gas) of an R1 is closer
to 415lbs. A stock CR5 puts out closer to 55hp at the rear wheel. 130hp at
the rear wheel is pretty accurate for an R1. It doesn't really matter to me
though. I mentioned the mag comparison of the CR5 vs 500 Interceptor to
make a point. The point is that even the most powerful dirt bike engines
are really wimpy when compared to the most powerful street bike engine. The
Interceptor 500 was far from the most powerful street bike engine of the
day. Good for a 500 of that time, but no match for engines twice, or more,
the size.
Ted
CGFlyer
> maybe in Kiwiland that's quick, at willowbank they do 4.83
> @466KM/h(290mph) - that looks pretty quick....
> top bike does around 6.47 qtr's.......
> heck,even the B modified Kawa 750's do 8.86 qtrs @237Km/h(148mph)...
I am assuming that these are Pro Stockers? If that is the case, then you folks
should bring these motorcycles forward and run them in some NHRA sanctioned
races. Then you could be a record holder. NHRA www.nhra.com Pro Stock record
is 7.1 sec in the qtr. Bring it forward and have your name posted in the NHRA
record books. That 4.83 @ 290 could replace "PSB 7.154 191.48 Oct-99 Matt
Hines - Trinidad, CO '95 Suzuki GSX-R Houston, Texas".
JMHO
Bob Mallard
http://www.willowbank-raceway.com.au
--
Bob M
family MX photos http://www.yatala.freeservers.com
"CGFlyer" <flyt"NOSPAM"ngneer@"NOSPAM"hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sqipo1d...@corp.supernews.com...
Bob Mallard
"Bob Mallard" <bmal...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:Re%p5.2794$lW1....@news1.rochd1.qld.optushome.com.au...
Bob Mallard
the Kiwi dudes quote that 'a car doing 10.2 is really quick'
--
Bob M
family MX photos http://www.yatala.freeservers.com
"Bob Mallard" <bmal...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:hieq5.2840$lW1....@news1.rochd1.qld.optushome.com.au...
> Check the records dude,yes we aussies are pretty quick!
>
> http://www.willowbank-raceway.com.au
>
>
>
> --
> Bob M
> family MX photos http://www.yatala.freeservers.com
>
CGFlyer
> Check the records dude,yes we aussies are pretty quick!
Impressive Times. I think it has to do with you guys running upside down...;-)
Well Mate, I'd have to say you should bring those machines over here and kick
some American butt.
And afterwards, we can cook some shrimp on the barby and open up a few oil cans.
I like this stuff, a good healthy debate, a little mud slinging and no one gets
hurts.
Bob Mallard
> <Snipped>
> And afterwards, we can cook some shrimp on the barby and open up a few oil
cans.
> I like this stuff, a good healthy debate, a little mud slinging and no one
gets
> hurts.
>
Yeah me too!, the best part is we are all pretty civil about it, flinging
'facts' back and forth is fine, but I back off when it gets down to 'f*ck
you!' 'no f*ck you' like some other newsgroups I could name....
rmd, for the period I have known it at least, has been very much a
'gentlmans' ng, and that is certainly a large part of it's charm.
nothin' wrong with a bit of benchracing, even if it is spanning 2 or 3
continents at the moment!
CYCLEANS
>> Chassis CR5,say 195lbs, 85HP (CR5's are 65HP stock,most tuners can get
>them
>> to 85)
really? most tuners can get 85 hp they must be using splitfire plugs and
duralube and to get such fantastic numbers.....LOL so in your figures you are
claiming the CR5 hp at 195 lbs for the chassisWhere did the other 45 lbs or so
go? That 236lbs or so you mentioned for weight. That was dry weight wasn't
it? If so how come you are using wet weight for the R1? BTW that is a pretty
high wet weight for an R1. we'll take care of that issue later
.Let's review
Bob Mallard
see www.hondampe.com.au
I have already given the link for the R1
195 was a guess for a stripped chassis bike, small front wheel etc.
"CYCLEANS" <cycl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000827193822...@ng-bk1.aol.com...
CYCLEANS
>> OK Ted, lets use your HP figures then......
>> R1, 451lbs, 130hp +165lb rider
>> =4.738lbs/hp
R1 385 lbs dry weight, 130 bhp + 165 rider
vs.
CR 250 236 lbs dry weight 65 hp + 165 rider
that's stocker for stocker dry weight vs dry weight......are you following me
here? As opposed to your obvious and blatent oversight posted as follows:
>> R1, 451lbs, 130hp +165lb rider
>> =4.738lbs/hp
>> Chassis CR5,say 195lbs, 85HP (CR5's are 65HP stock,most tuners can get
>them
>> to 85),165lb rider
>> =4.235lbs/hp
So as you can see the calculation that you are basing your argument is flawed
and without merit or fact....much like your opinion or statement! Thanks for
playing though.....LOL
Bob Mallard
>
> R1 385 lbs dry weight, 130 bhp + 165 rider
> vs.
> CR 250 236 lbs dry weight 65 hp + 165 rider
CR250 - LOL! are you awake here dude?
> that's stocker for stocker dry weight vs dry weight......are you following
me
We NEVER EVER said stocker for stocker, it was always chassis CR5 against R1
stocker...
> here? As opposed to your obvious and blatent oversight posted as follows:
> >> R1, 451lbs, 130hp +165lb rider
check the link, argue with them.....
Andy Mullins
They have one class that as long as it has Non-DOT approved tires it is
considered a dirt bike.
--
Andy Mullins
'00 XR 650R
'93 Honda 300EX
And various other piled up out back
www.otiscampbell.com
I seen temptation coming but it seen me coming too
<steven...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8o4aiq$qgu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> This is one you probably haven't heard before -- I am going to set up
> my just-restored 86 CR500 as a 1/8 mile drag bike (at a commercial
> asphalt strip near here). Not even ridden since the restore, it has
> an FMF pipe and the Boyesen Rad Valve installed. In the class it would
> run they have everything from BMW bikes to snowmobiles with rollers and
> shifter go-karts!
>
> I did finally get the bike started after some help from the group (had
> to straighten a dip in the fuel line and back out the pilot screw to 2
> turns with choke off-- now it starts like a moped but doesn't sound
> like one).
>
> Does anyone have the slightest idea what kind of ET or trap speed it
> would do (I weigh 160)? The closest set up I have seen to this is
> the TT/SuperMotard bikes (http://supertt.com) and CR500 road racers a
> few years ago.
>
> Ideally I would like to find a used front and rear hub to lace up to
> 17, 18 , or 19" rims with steet tires permanently mounted and keep the
> current wheels for off-road games. Apparently the 85-86 CRs all shared
> at least the front hub, judging by the common rotor. Let me know if
> you know of any for sale. The rear hub is, of course, a drum brake unit
> from that period.
>
> Any other helpful suggestions other than that's crazy I would be
> interested to hear...
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> RK Tek LLC in Utah.
Bob Mallard
> I am assuming that these are Pro Stockers? If that is the case, then you
folks
> should bring these motorcycles forward and run them in some NHRA
sanctioned
> races. Then you could be a record holder. NHRA www.nhra.com Pro Stock
record
> is 7.1 sec in the qtr. Bring it forward and have your name posted in the
NHRA
> record books. That 4.83 @ 290 could replace "PSB 7.154 191.48 Oct-99 Matt
> Hines - Trinidad, CO '95 Suzuki GSX-R Houston, Texas".
>
Interesting that your top fuel (car) is MUCH faster than us (4.48/326mph to
4.83/290mph), but our TopBike is quicker than yours (6.72/190mph to
7.154/191mph), must be the cost factor, or I guess you have a longer history
in performance car engines.....(bike drags being a little more recent?)
CYCLEANS
some old issues(and my wife complains about me keeping them!) I found a dirt
rider mag/ Dec 1985 on page 84 there were the specs on a 1986 Cr500 guess what?
It weighs 235.5 lbs dry and 250 with a full tank. It made 47.5 hp at the rear
wheel at 6000 rpms. Torque ratings 41.5 ft lbs at 6000 rpms. where did you come
up with the 65 hp from a stock Cr500? probably the same place you found your
other facts......Hmmmmm. I welcome your rebuttal....<vbg>Why don't you
recalculate using real numbers this time then get back to us?
Bob Mallard
www.hondampe.com.au look under competition/CR500
heck, i'll even risk the copyright laws just for those that can't follow a
link:
Model Name: CR500R
Engine Type: Liquid-cooled 2-stroke single
Bore x Stroke: 89 x 79mm
Displacement: 491.4cm3
Compression Ratio: 6.8 : 1
Carburettor(s): 38mm flat valve (PJ27P)
Maximum Power: 64.6PS/6,000rpm (DIN) (47.5kW/6,000min-1)
Maximum Torque: 7.7kg-m/6,000rpm (DIN) (75.5Nm/6,000min-1)
Ignition: Capacitor discharge (CDI)
Starter: Primary kick
Transmission: 5-speed
Final Drive: Roller chain
ENJOY!!
"CYCLEANS" <cycl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000827234834...@ng-mg1.aol.com...
'cause if I did that i'd lose the argument and the fun would be over! duh!
CYCLEANS
Sorry about that...Cr500
>We NEVER EVER said stocker for stocker, it was always chassis CR5 against R1
>stocker...
Describe a chassis CR5? With engine? tires wheels?
>> here? As opposed to your obvious and blatent oversight posted as follows:
>> >> R1, 451lbs, 130hp +165lb rider
>
>check the link, argue with them.....
>
I'm not really disputing these facts in this particular situation.What I'm
disputing is the way you present them.....Wet weight with a full tank of gas
for the R1 and unheard of weight numbers and hp numbers for a clapped out 1985
Cr500.Is that with the engine and wheels?BTW Sport rider Dec 1999 issue list
the R1 at 448 wet 419 dry.Y2k R1 is 5 lbs lighter and makes more power.
Bob Mallard
> I'm not really disputing these facts in this particular situation.What I'm
> disputing is the way you present them.....Wet weight with a full tank of
gas
> for the R1 and unheard of weight numbers and hp numbers for a clapped out
1985
> Cr500.Is that with the engine and wheels?BTW Sport rider Dec 1999 issue
list
> the R1 at 448 wet 419 dry.Y2k R1 is 5 lbs lighter and makes more power.
ah hah! so who was 40lbs out then.....more like 60lbs dude!
your prior post:
>R1 385 lbs dry weight, 130 bhp + 165 rider
--
CYCLEANS
64.6 Ps/6000 must be at the crankshaft, notice 47.5 kW/6 has to be rear wheel.
Thanks for posting the links info it's a far cry difference then your original
claims.The R1makes 150 hp at the crank BTW.That being said....with the obvious
power to weight advantage of a bike like the R1 a 10.2 quater mile time out of
a highly modified Cr 500 is virtually impossible . I don't think it would be
impossible to get one in the 12's if it was highly modified....I stand by my
original statement 9 secs in the 1/8 mile high 13's low 14's in the quarter for
most Crs.
CYCLEANS
>>R1 385 lbs dry weight, 130 bhp + 165 rider
>
>
Those are claimed dry weights published by the manufacturer......I was at work
and didn't want to post actual weights since I didn't have them on hand.Those
weights were from a 99 model the 2000 model is 5 lbs lighter!
>ah hah! so who was 40lbs out then.....more like 60lbs dude!
419 - 385 is 34 lbs ......never the less where is this 190 lb CR500?
Bob Mallard
> >Maximum Power: 64.6PS/6,000rpm (DIN) (47.5kW/6,000min-1)
>
wheel.
Nope. Wrong yet again!! 47.5Kw = 64hp, they are just different units of
measure!
NOTHING to do with your wild assumptions about crank and rear wheel HP
(stand back a little dude, some BS ability seems to rubbing off onto ya!)
Jim Hall
>>Nope. Wrong yet again!! 47.5Kw = 64hp, they are just different units of
>>measure!
>
>What units might that be? Doesn't it seem to be a bit a coincidence that dirt
>rider published the exact number of 47.5 at the rear wheel. Since you are so
>bright enlighten me what is 47.5 kw?
kW means kilowatts. It's a metric unit of measure. 1.34 hp = 1
kilowatt. Being an Aussie, he pulled his information off of a metric
website. I'm not familiar with the Dirt Rider article, but dyno
readouts are often in kilowatts.
Jim Hall
'00 520 EXC
'98 380 EXC (FOR SALE) and others
turning Money into Noise...
Thank you Big Joe's Cycle; Plateau Engineering
Ted
CYCLEANS wrote in message <20000828211907...@ng-bk1.aol.com>...
>>Nope. Wrong yet again!! 47.5Kw = 64hp, they are just different units of
>>measure!
>
>What units might that be? Doesn't it seem to be a bit a coincidence that
dirt
>rider published the exact number of 47.5 at the rear wheel. Since you are
so
>bright enlighten me what is 47.5 kw?
A kW is a kilowatt or 1,000 Watts. The Watt is a unit of measure for power
in the metric system. It is equal to 1 Joule per second. One Joule is
equal to a force of 1 Newton applied over a distance of 1 meter. 1hp is
equal to .746kW.
BTW...I found that old DirtBike mag with the CR5 vs 500 Interceptor race.
The CR was stock with the exception of a street rear tire, different
gearing, and holes drilled in the air box. The best run was 12.33 @ 102.35
(corrected). The riders claimed that it could do better with even taller
gearing (It topped out well before the lights).
Ted
Brian McGarry
Jim Hall wrote:
> cycl...@aol.com (CYCLEANS) wrote:
>
> Being an Aussie, he pulled his information off of a metric
> website.
Horse power is a universal scale. Even the Aussies use Horse power. <G>
> I'm not familiar with the Dirt Rider article, but dyno
> readouts are often in kilowatts.
And in HP too. The kw vs HP is digressing from the discussion. Internal
combustion engines for human propellant usage are rated in HP.
Electric motors are rated in either HP or kw.
CYCLEANS
CYCLEANS
>(stand back a little dude, some BS ability seems to rubbing off onto ya!)
wild assumptions? A 1986 Cr 500 stock makes 47.5 bhp....do you dispute this? If
any Bs has rubbed off on me it came from your direction.......The only Bs i've
seen are your outrageous claims of Cr500's running 10.2's in the quarter
mile.85 hp claims from a modified Cr500....
CYCLEANS
Well put up or shut up...........
CYCLEANS
>The CR was stock with the exception of a street rear tire, different
>gearing, and holes drilled in the air box. The best run was 12.33 @ 102.35
>(corrected). The riders claimed that it could do better with even taller
>gearing (It topped out well before the lights).
>
>Ted
at the end of the quarter?
.
Bob Mallard
> >NOTHING to do with your wild assumptions about crank and rear wheel HP
> >(stand back a little dude, some BS ability seems to rubbing off onto ya!)
>
> wild assumptions? A 1986 Cr 500 stock makes 47.5 bhp....do you dispute
this?
Yes! - you are quoting a magazine using a Dyno in 1986, anyone who knows
anything about Dynos will tell you that you CANNOT get absolute figures from
them, you can only use them for apples to apples comparisons.
I suggest that Honda Motor Corporation in the year 2000 would have a much
better chance at providing the correct figure than the DirtBike boys after a
days drag racing and few Bud's back in 1986!
> any Bs has rubbed off on me it came from your direction.......The only Bs
i've
> seen are your outrageous claims of Cr500's running 10.2's in the quarter
I did not claim it, I quoted it from Rich Rohrich!
By now you may have guessed that yes, I was an ex bike drag racer, running a
GSX-1100 (stripped,cammed,balanced,flowed,slicked,welded up clutch but no
air shifter) which ran easy 10.8's
I now own a CR500, and although I didn't get the chance to run them back to
back, I can tell that the (stock) CR500 feels stronger than the 1100 (which
was about 110-120HP)
I can also tell you that I have ABSOLUTE FAITH in Rich Rohrich's quote, that
a chassis, ported CR500 running gas (NO2) could run10.2s. I would probably
even bet my house that it was possible.
You do not believe this, and do not appear to know who RR is.
I wonder if you also , think honestly now, would be prepared to say that
such a bike ABSOLUTELY COULD NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES TRIP 10.2s?
If you can answer 'yes' to that, and still consider you don't talk BS, you
are certainly one deluded fellow.
Finally, since neither of us can either prove or disprove the claim, I guess
we will have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Thanks again for you input, and I look forward to our next discussion! :)
see ya dude,
--
Bob M
family MX photos http://www.yatala.freeservers.com
P.S. thanks to those that took the time explain the metric system to our
friend!
Bob Mallard
> ....I stand by my
> original statement 9 secs in the 1/8 mile high 13's low 14's in the
quarter for
> most Crs.
Really! since the magazine you quoted had the stocker running 12.33.....
BS ALERT!!! BS ALERT!!!
CYCLEANS
>we will have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
I agree.....
CYCLEANS
>BS ALERT!!! BS ALERT!!!
Pssst,...... that wasn't my quote...I just thanked him for the info......BTW
that is faster then I guessed...
Pete Plassmann
Depends on where you are from. I remeber seeing ratings in HP, kW, and PS
(Pferde Starke). Guess where that was.
Pete P.
Bob Mallard
going to confuse it further with Pferde Starke to Kw to hp!
So yes I used 47.5Kw= 64hp (actually 63.7 but I rounded it)
Check your own link dude!
Bob M (BSc Auckland)
"Matt Porritt" <porr...@anet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:newscache$o5v30g$iq1@frodo...
> Read what he said again...
> He quoted 64.6PS... in my books 64.6PS = 47.5kw..
>
> But according to you 47.5kw = 64hp.... According to me 47.5kw is under
64PS.
>
> You're right... they are different units of measure.. your units are
> different from what he quoted.
>
> I think that if you can't do simple conversions to the metric system then
> you should maybe keep you gob closed! :)
>
> **I no longer wonder why the yanks still use a 'non-metric' system**
>
> This URL may be handy to someone
http://www.motocom.com/unitconversions.html
> --
> Matt Porritt
>
> ----------
> In article <NkBq5.2908$lW1....@news1.rochd1.qld.optushome.com.au>, "Bob
> Mallard" <bmal...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> >> 64.6 Ps/6000 must be at the crankshaft, notice 47.5 kW/6 has to be rear
> > wheel.
> >
> > Nope. Wrong yet again!! 47.5Kw = 64hp, they are just different units of
> > measure!
> >
Matt Porritt
Matt Porritt
He never mentioned hp anywhere!! his were in Pferde Starke
I quote him saying 64.6PS=47.5kw which it does.
I must admit I did make a typo (typed PS instead of hp :)) but it was too
late after sending the post.
But I mean how can you argue his post when you're going and changing the
units in which hes quoting figures??
The bottom line is basically a CR5 on the strip is not going to break the
11sec mark :)
--
Matt Porritt -NZCE-NCMADE
Rubber Chicken Racing
www.rubberchickenracing.com
----------
In article <3f7r5.2994$lW1....@news1.rochd1.qld.optushome.com.au>, "Bob
Bob Mallard
> NO.. you check again.. :)
NO... YOU CHECK AGAIN
the 64.6PS came from the Honda site
>I quote him saying 64.6PS=47.5kw which it does.
Your only correct statement
Remember this? 'So yes I used 47.5Kw= 64hp (actually 63.7 but I rounded it)'
Another correct statement
I'll summarise 64.6PS=47.5kw = (approx) 64hp
WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
>But I mean how can you argue his post when you're going and changing the
>units in which hes quoting figures??
To make it easier for him. You may not know it, but many engineers use PS
and HP virtually interchangeably, since they are so close anyway.
IN THIS ARGUMENT IT MADE NO DIFFERENCE
>The bottom line is basically a CR5 on the strip is not going to break the
>11sec mark :)
BS
sheeesh, I give up, at least CYCLEANS was entertaining!
Matt Porritt
----------
In article <h2or5.3012$lW1....@news1.rochd1.qld.optushome.com.au>, "Bob
Mallard" <bmal...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
> Remember this? 'So yes I used 47.5Kw= 64hp (actually 63.7 but I rounded it)'
> Another correct statement
I though you had a BSc?
You don't do a conversion in which the given data is 1dp an then 'round' the
answer to 0dp!
Thats like pre 1st year learning!
>>But I mean how can you argue his post when you're going and changing the
>>units in which hes quoting figures??
>
> To make it easier for him. You may not know it, but many engineers use PS
> and HP virtually interchangeably, since they are so close anyway.
> IN THIS ARGUMENT IT MADE NO DIFFERENCE
Many engineers??? Don't speak for me at all!
'I' AM an engineer... I'm working with 5500hp engines EVERYDAY.. and there
has NEVER been a single time that I have run across anyone whether its in
engineering, motorsport anything that uses PS as being HP.
They're not the same therefore they're not mixed.. EVER
Its like saying a US gallon is the same as a UK gallon.
Gallons a gallon?? I think not!
Anyway..
You keep thinking that a CR5 is going sub 11sec and maybe Santa will bring
you that new bike you've been dreaming of...
--
Matt Porritt
CYCLEANS
>11sec mark :)
Nor will it make 64 Bhp......at least a stock one
Bob Mallard
>
> ----------
> 'I' AM an engineer...
AH HA! I Knew it! that explains everything! ... QED.
>You keep thinking that a CR5 is going sub 11sec and maybe Santa will bring
>you that new bike you've been dreaming of...
OK,lets make it real simple for the engineer....
Rich Rohrich,Applied Fluid Dynamics Reckons10.2's
Matt Porritt,Rubber Chicken Man, Reckons 11+
mmmmm, I might put my money on RR methinks.
go and bolt on another exhaust RCR man.
P.S. I wonder if you realise how many aussies are reading your vitriol? , BS
and personal attacks (>'shut your gob') must be good for business dude.....
Sure makes me ashamed to be an ex NZ'er when I can have a civil 50 post
argument with theAmericans, but a Kiwi can't get past 3 posts without
swearing or resorting to a personal attack.
Bob Mallard
> They're not the same therefore they're not mixed.. EVER
> Its like saying a US gallon is the same as a UK gallon.
> Gallons a gallon?? I think not!
never say never on the 'net dude! ,it's too easy to be proven wrong.
>they're not mixed.. EVER
BZZZZZZZZT
pk (paardenkracht) = cv (chevaux) = hp (horsepower) = PS (Pferde Stärke)
http://www.solex.nl/techniek/vertaling.htm
Bob Mallard
YOU have a BE? which University dude?
>I'm working with 5500hp engines EVERYDAY..
Everyday huh?, 5500hp, and you thought 10.2 was quick?
BS ALERT!! BS ALERT!!
Bob Mallard
the slightest bit relevant.
I hereby refuse to post further on the subject.
Those that wish to argue further please email me directly.
I will be happy to refute all claims and return all insults via email.
again, apologies to rmd, sorry all!
see ya,
David Jones
<bmal...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Matt Porritt" <porr...@anet.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:newscache$zsq50g$6t2@frodo...
>>
>> 'I' AM an engineer...
>
>YOU have a BE? which University dude?
>
>>I'm working with 5500hp engines EVERYDAY..
>
>Everyday huh?, 5500hp, and you thought 10.2 was quick?
Those big bore mills run at a slow RPM don't they? Like 200
Revolutions Per Millennium?
DJ
David Jones
<bmal...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Matt Porritt" <porr...@anet.co.nz> wrote in message
>
>>they're not mixed.. EVER
>BZZZZZZZZT
>
>pk (paardenkracht) = cv (chevaux) = hp (horsepower) = PS (Pferde Stärke)
>http://www.solex.nl/techniek/vertaling.htm
Gotta love those European languages, 'specially Deutsch:
rear view mirror = Rückspiegel
luggage rack = Gepäckträger
luggage rack = bagagedrager (Nederland)
protection plate = Schmutzfänger hinter
Scotch/Irish Jones
DirtCrashr
>http://www.solex.nl/techniek/vertaling.htm
From my understanding, while the vocabulary words are the same, that is Pferd
is German for Horse and so on, the actual methods of measurment and arriving at
that number are different, so that Hp and Ps aren't quite the same.
Like if you took a Z28 Camaro measured by the Germans in Ps you'd get a
different number than the US dealers advertise for Hp. (And they're both
probably lying)
http://www.chevroleteurope.com/germany/camaro/german/cam_xxx_de_de_z28.htm
212 kW/288 PS bei 5.200 U/min.
while in Canada:
http://www.gmcanada.com/english/vehicles/chevrolet/camaro/cama_details.html
Horsepower - 305 @ 5200 rpm, Torque
335 lb.-ft @ 4000 rpm
So whatever, there also could be variations between export models...
DirtCrashr - '97ktm300mxc '95cb1000
D-36 BRC COHVCO HHORA...and AMA
steven...@my-deja.com
beautiful country in '93, what happened?
I'll never forget the Hotel owner in Rotarua who gave me a ride cross
town in his Land Rover to another motel with a vacancy -- I've never
seen anyone go out of their way like that here in the U.S.
Steve Lucas
P.S. I started the thread never dreaming it would go this way.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
J Payer
> My apologies to RMD, this thread has gone on far
> too long, and is no longer the slightest bit relevant.
I found it especially fasinating that people could argue over such
meaningless subject matter for this lenght of time.
> I hereby refuse to post further on the subject.
Don't stop now, it was just getting good. It almost broke down to the
point of, "well...well....f**k yourself!". <LOL>
> Those that wish to argue further please email me
> directly. I will be happy to refute all claims and return
> all insults via email.
BBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!1
> again, apologies to rmd, sorry all!
No apology needed. It was a good discussion (for awhile anyway), and,
if I ever hit the lottery, I'll be sure to purchase a R1 and build a
chassis 500 and shake 'em down. All findings will be reported to RMD
post haste.
J&K
www.smackovermotorsports.com, www.eric-gorr.com, www.appliedrace.com,
www.tssgraphics.com
Matt Porritt
Spend any time in the South Island? The people down south are twice as
hospitable than the northerners.
Though the working population are starting to get tired of being stood
over.. Unions are becoming stronger etc..
Expect to hear about some shit going down in the next year or two..
Its going to happen.. mark these words! :)
----------
vjc
<bmal...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>My apologies to RMD, this thread has gone on far too long, and is no longer
>the slightest bit relevant.
>
OK, you no the rules Bob. If your going to go around apologising we'll
have to force you dress in drag and stand on the G.C. highway for a
few bob ;)
Another post mentioned kiwi, say it ain't so say it ain't so !!!!
cheers
vjc
Matt Porritt
----------
In article <6fo3rso88jsnuqm3n...@4ax.com>, vjc
The Deeneys
Bob Mallard wrote in message ...
>My apologies to RMD,
Bob, I've sat on my fingers for too long. These incessant apologies are
going to have to stop. This sort of drivel is just the sort of thing
leading
to the moral decay in this newsgroup. If I see one more apology from
you, will beceremoniously striped you of your FOLMA number
and flogged with old inner tubes.
-Jeffrey Deeney- DoD#0498 NCTR UTMA BRC COHVCO AMA
dee...@frii.nospam.com '99 ATK 260LQ-Stink Wheels '94 XR650L-DreamSickle
We don't stop riding because we get old, we get old because we stop riding.
Bob Mallard
for causing you such obvious I will despatch 2 cuddly Koalas immediately in
the hope they may cheer you up (or bite your nipples off and piss down your
leg as they are often want to do...)
--
Bob M
family MX photos http://www.yatala.freeservers.com
"The Deeneys" <dee...@nospam.frii.com> wrote in message
news:tScB5.48$D4.175...@news.frii.net...