HA2,
You are pathetic. You are never going to convince anyone that the 250R was around before the Quadracer. Even if it was being developed it doesn't matter because the Quadracer came out and that is what started the racing quad market. Do us all a favor and shut up.

 

I think it's sad....it was released too the public after the LT. NEXT!

 

if this is true then y didnt Suzuki copy the TRX design in the after years? The 250R is way better than the LT and suzuki probaly felt this when their sales dropped in '87. They could have updated it but left it the same all the way up to '92?

Rockrider: Ive ridden on R's with both styles of swingarm and it was the same to me. Magazines just bring up stuff like that to keep u interested. Whether it makes a difference or not are u or anyone esle for that matter good enough or picky enough to notice it? I doubt anyone is. Its only an inch difference.

 

I think the reason Suzuki didn't make major frame changes to the Quadracer was because of all the termoil with the CPSC. At that time the big four looked at high performance and sport quads as liabilities. The 250X actually went away for a couple years. The '89 250R was exactly the same as the '88 250R save for the color and the $4000 price.

Corporate pride could have had something to do with it. Had Suzuki made changes that looked similar to the 250R they would have been admitting that the LT250R wasn't as good. Thing is, back in the late 80's the 250R and Quadracer were viewed as being quite similar in performance. The dominence of the 250R didn't happen right away. What really had more bearing on the success of the 250R was that it was far more durable and well built compared to the Suzuki. The Quadracer's biggest downfalls were the frame and front end. The aftermarket support for the 250R was far greater as well which led to more spornorship deals for racers. The other thing, if I remember correctly, is that Honda racing put up more contingency money than Suzuki.

Suzuki is a much smaller company than Honda. It was nice to see a small company beat the big one to the punch in 1985 after years of Honda domination in both ATC's and dirt bikes.

 

"now answer mine: What are the similiarities in the frame structure, front steering, and front suspension with the LT 250 and 250R. "
they both have 2 front tires. 2 shocks a arms ETC ETC..

 

qwerty and gary
its obvious you two havent read the whole post. i never said the 250r came out before the LT. not to mention one of you is a moderator. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif[/img]

rockrider,
answering another question with a question. how much more time do you need to explain how Honda let Suzuki do the R&D and then applied it to their own quad. after that you can explain how R&D on a machine that shares no design similiarities would even be a good resource of data. Honda cant be stupid enough to forget about consequencing variables.

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: HA2



i agree with this comment because honda test's there machines like 4-5 yrs even scap wheelers we never even hear about behind the public eye....i wouldnt doubt any manufacture had quads on the drawing board way back may b even late 70's

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: rockrider
What really had more bearing on the success of the 250R was that it was far more durable and well built compared to the Suzuki. q]



good quote good quote

 

So since the frame geometry on the Lt sucked, would this mean that suzuki rushed to get their quad out first because they knew Honda was in the making? or is just that suzuki sucks?

 

u said it i believe it
[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]