Author Topic: 1985 ALT250RF TriRacer (Read 2079 times)

Kyle T · « **on:** March 20, 2013, 06:20:16 pm »

OK, the 1985 ALT250RF TriRacer is complete! Here is the lowdown.
RETAINED FROM 1985 LT250RF
AIR CLEANER
BRAKE LEVER
CRANK BALANCER
CRANKCASE
CRANKCASE COVER
CUSHION LEVER
FRONT MASTER CYLINDER
HANDLEBAR-CONTROL CABLE
HEADLAMP HOUSING
HEADLAMP
KICK STARTER
LEFT HANDLE SWITCH
MAGNETO
REAR CALIPER
REAR MASTER CYLINDER
REAR SHOCK ABSORBER
REAR SWINGING ARM
TAIL LAMP
WATER PUMP
WIRING HARNESS
MODIFIED FROM 1985 LT250RF
CARBURETOR
Different size CABURETOR ASSEMBLY
Different size JET NEEDLE
Different cutaway PISTON VALVE
Different size NEEDLE JET
Different size PILOT JET
Different size MAIN JET
Different size NEEDLE VALVE ASSEMBLY
CLUTCH
Different amount of teeth PRIMARY DRIVEN GEAR
CRANKSHAFT
Different amount of teeth PRIMARY DRIVE GEAR
CYLINDER
Different chamber CYLINDER HEAD
Different porting CYLINDER
ELECTRICAL
Different ignition curve CDI UNIT ASSEMBLY
FOOTREST
Folding RH FRONT FOOTREST BAR
Folding LH FRONT FOOTREST BAR
Removed FRONT GRIP, 3 BOLTS, 3 SPACERS, PAD, 4 CLAMPS, and 3 NUTS
FRAME
Obvious 3 wheeler FRAME
Removed STEERING SHAFT BUSH, FRONT RADIATOR COVER, and SCREW
FRONT BRAKE HOSE
Removed EVERYTHING EXCEPT BOOT, 2 BOLTS, 4 WASHERS and new FRONT BRAKE HOSE NUMBER 1
FRONT CALIPER
Removed EVERYTHING
FRONT FENDER
Removed EVEYTHING EXCEPT GEAR SHIFT LABEL and WARNING LABEL
FRONT WHEEL
Removed EVERYTHING EXCEPT 4 FRONT HUB BOLTS, 4 WHEEL SET WASHERS, 4 WHEEL SET NUTS, and VALVE ASSEMBLY
FUEL TANK
New 163 Phlolina Yellow FUEL TANK
Different FUEL ROOSTER ASSEMBLY
GEAR SHIFTING
Folding LEVER ASSEMBLY
MUFFLER
Different 1ST MUFFLER
Different 2ND MUFFLER
RADIATOR
Removed EVERYTHING
REAR BRAKE
Folding BRAKE PEDAL
REAR FENDER
Removed "QuadRacer" EMBLEM
Added "TriRacer" EMBLEM
REAR WHEEL
Different amount of teeth REAR SPROCKET
Different REAR TIRES
SEAT
Different WARNING LABEL
STEERING SHAFT
Removed EVERYTHING
SUSPENSION ARM
Removed EVERYTHING
TIE ROD
Removed EVERYTHING
TRANSMISSION
Different amount of teeth COUNTERSHAFT
Different amount of teeth 2ND DRIVE GEAR
Different amount of teeth 3RD DRIVE GEAR
Different amount of teeth 4TH DRIVE GEAR
Different amount of teeth 5TH DRIVE GEAR
Different amount of teeth 1ST DRIVEN GEAR
Different amount of teeth 2ND DRIVEN GEAR
Different amount of teeth 3RD DRIVEN GEAR
Different amount of teeth 4TH DRIVEN GEAR
Different amount of teeth 5TH DRIVEN GEAR
Different amount of teeth ENGINE SPROCKET
From 1985 RM250F
FRONT BRAKE HOSE
Added CLAMP, SCREW, AND WASHER
FRONT CALIPER
Added EVERYTHING
FRONT DAMPER
Added RH DAMPER ASSEMBLY
Added LH DAMPER ASSEMBLY
2 different VALVES
2 different SPRINGS
Added 2 BOOTS
Added 2 BOOT BANDS
Added 2 SCREWS
FRONT FENDER
Added wider FRONT FENDER
Added 4 BOLTS
Added 4 LOCK WASHERS
Added 8 WASHERS
FRONT WHEEL
Added wider 3 wheeler FRONT WHEEL HUB
Added FRONT HUB SPACER
Added 2 BEARINGS
Added wider FRONT AXLE
Added wider RH AXLE SPACER
Added wider LH AXLE SPACER
Added FRONT BRAKE DISK
Added 6 SCREWS
Added 3 wheeler FRONT TIRE
Added 3 wheeler FRONT WHEEL RIM
HANDLEBAR
Added STEERING STEM NUT
Added UPPER INNER STEERING RACE
Added UPPER OUTER STEERING RACE
Added 18 BALLS OF STEEL
Added UPPER DUST SEAL
Added FRONT FORK AIR GAUGE
RADIATOR
Added EVERYTHING
Different RH TAPE, added "TriRacer" and "250"
Different LH TAPE, added "TriRacer" and "250"
STEERING STEM
Added EVERYTHING
Wider STEERING STEM
Wider STEERING STEM HEAD

Also, I slipped a few typos in there. See if you can spot them all!
Modify message

Derrik · « **Reply #1 on:** March 20, 2013, 11:54:33 pm »

now with no pics of this lockness monster in the wild or pics of it being built im just upset

Kyle T · « **Reply #2 on:** March 21, 2013, 06:15:13 am »

Hey, if you wanna donate some time/parts/loot to the cause...

Chuckie25 · « **Reply #3 on:** March 21, 2013, 01:57:41 pm »

I'm the man to talk to if you wanna see a REAL ALT250R ! May not have been a Suzuki frame but its the damned closest thing.

Anyone wanna know the particulars? I even know who built the frame now!!!!

Chuckie25 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 21, 2013, 02:00:55 pm »

I'm glad to see you took in the consideration to change the port timing of the cylinder. Too bad you didn't figure it to be the 81/82 RM cylinder

basically the EXACT engine. No counterbalancer (Tri-Z way son!).

Kyle T · « **Reply #5 on:** March 21, 2013, 04:26:51 pm »

Well CJ, let's see it then!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Suzuki does it the (do I really have to say this?

) Honda way.

Chuckie25 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 21, 2013, 06:19:51 pm »

WELL, the original, AKA Edie Sanders', ALT250R was an RM conversion running a NICHOLSON, yes Nicholson!! AKA Nick Nicholson AKA the same Pickleson who made my 90 frame!, chassis! I have a friend in Cali who is real close to Mr. Nick so I may ask him if he could get me some details of it.

As for seeing it,,,
the first 15 seconds of this video you can see it twice in good (but quick) side shot

Kyle T · « **Reply #7 on:** March 21, 2013, 06:53:24 pm »

Dat's cheating. Gotta be an 85 based on da LT.

JayTater · « **Reply #8 on:** March 22, 2013, 07:38:41 am »

Why would an ALT be LT based? Thatds ridiculous. The ATC wasn't TRX based, the Tri-Z wasn't based on the Moto 4. It would only make PEFECT sense for the ALT to be based closer to the RM, just as Eddie Sanders ALT was. Better yet, how is it, and WHY is it that Black Sheep builds all of the TPC trikes from dirtbikes? Its not because of parts availability or rarity.

Kyle T · « **Reply #9 on:** March 22, 2013, 10:47:00 am »

The ATC wasn't TRX based, because the TRX didn't exist yet. It wasn't CR based either, because they were liquid cooled at the time and had no balancer.
The Moto 4 was no racer. And Yamaha was the oddball. No maken 250 4 wheelah.
RM with balancer? Yah.

JayTater · « **Reply #10 on:** March 22, 2013, 11:01:11 am »

Answer the questions Kyle.. LOL. Why would an ALT be LT based? RM would be a more sensible foundation.

PCS · « **Reply #11 on:** March 22, 2013, 03:23:06 pm »

it was the other way around, the trx was based on the atc250r, lots of parts borrowed over
the rear end of the banshee/blaster chassis design matches the rear end of a tri z
and the tecate 4 borrowed lots of parts from the tecate 3

lets see some pic voodoo!

Kyle T · « **Reply #12 on:** March 22, 2013, 03:41:12 pm »

Exactly. So ALT=LT=ALT. In the order of things, ALT woulda been first, and LT woulda borrowed from it. Soooooooooooo 84 ALT250R?

JayTater · « **Reply #13 on:** March 22, 2013, 03:49:02 pm »

It never existed... Other than a one off bike here and there, that were RM Based.

Chuckie25 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 22, 2013, 03:50:10 pm »

Quote from: PCS on March 22, 2013, 03:23:06 pm

it was the other way around, the trx was based on the atc250r, lots of parts borrowed over
the rear end of the banshee/blaster chassis design matches the rear end of a tri z
and the tecate 4 borrowed lots of parts from the tecate 3

lets see some pic voodoo!

The yammy part is why I have a Z swinger/rear end in my Blasty!! Lol

I can't wait to have more money and get to build a Zuki trike...

NON-COUNTERBALANCED.

JayTater · « **Reply #15 on:** March 22, 2013, 04:19:43 pm »

Quote from: Kyle T on March 21, 2013, 06:53:24 pm

Dat's cheating. Gotta be an 85 based on da LT.

What I'm saying is, you can't build a period correct trike and base it off of the quad that did not exist during that period. It would be useless to use a counterbalanced LT engine, because the balancer is useless in a forked chassis. Base it on the aircooled RM, or, the RD bike, ( I think, but still non counterbalanced.)

If the Tri- Racer had been built and ran extensively, Suzuki would have ditched the big bulky Dogbone link rear suspension before the LT was released in 85 though LOL

Kyle T · « **Reply #16 on:** March 22, 2013, 06:16:56 pm »

Do it CJ.

Sure I can. Sazook coulda built an ALT and an LT at the same time.
Why were Hondas balanced?
If they decided to not use that wack system, that woulda been sweet!

You guys should take the write up I did, and modify it for what YOU want it to be.

JayTater · « **Reply #17 on:** March 22, 2013, 06:21:58 pm »

Not sure what Honda was thinking. I agree that the balancer is unnecessary.

Kyle T · « **Reply #18 on:** March 22, 2013, 06:31:43 pm »

I like balancers myself.
Besides, what about the engine that the LT250RF and G evolved from, the TS250X? It was in a dirt bike and had a balancer. As did the liquid cooled Blaster. And the CRM250R. And a few I'm forgetting.

JayTater · « **Reply #19 on:** March 22, 2013, 07:08:16 pm »

I prefer it without, especially after running and working on this 97 RM. The wheels on the crank itself are balanced. Very minimal vibration from it. Balancers just seemed to hold the engine back, and still aren't 100% at cancelling the vibration. Its why some of the Harley guys yank the balancers from their Evos.

Kyle T · « **Reply #20 on:** March 22, 2013, 07:36:43 pm »

Maybe the 250s don't need balancers, but the big boys sure do! The CR500R is balanced for sh!t. I assume the KX and RMs are too, and we ALL know about the YZ490s...

Chuckie25 · « **Reply #21 on:** March 22, 2013, 07:41:24 pm »

You don't need a balancer in a trike. All it does is hold the engine back from kit revving out as far and hard as it can.

Kyle T · « **Reply #22 on:** March 22, 2013, 07:42:22 pm »

Honda didst disagree.

Chuckie25 · « **Reply #23 on:** March 22, 2013, 07:43:54 pm »

Honda didn't need to rely on revs because of the superiority of their port mapping.

Kyle T · « **Reply #24 on:** March 22, 2013, 07:45:05 pm »

So, still use balancer?

News:

Author Topic: 1985 ALT250RF TriRacer (Read 2079 times)

Suzuki Quadracer HQ Store Zone