Motorcycle Forum

Motorcycle Forum (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/index.php)
-   Misc News (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=78)
-   -   70 HP / less than 300 lbs? (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2704)

webdev511 03-21-2005 05:05 AM

Not with this motor
 
MX 4 stroke motors installed in sport/race bikes are problematic at best.



Dry oil sump, wide gearbox ratios, compact cases, cause stresses and issues that don't come up in the dirt.



The concept is sound, but it will need a redesign before it hits the street / track.



Now about putting that bored and stroked DR-Z400 motor in my RGV chassis....

ValkBandit 03-21-2005 05:23 AM

Re: 70 HP / less than 300 lbs?
 
i'm with you, brother.

seruzawa 03-21-2005 07:19 AM

Re: 70 HP / less than 300 lbs?
 
Ummmm, the death of two-stroke offroad (and street) motorcycles is most definitely not the result of consumer choice. It is plain and simple govt mandate.



I'd take a two-stroke powerplant for any kind of performance riding over a four-stroke. Four-strokes make better tourers (unless you fit 10 gallon tanks to two strokes) or cruisers, but for sportbiking or dirtriding two-strokes are immeasurably superior. They would dominate still today if they could meet pollution mandates.

Tigercub 03-21-2005 07:28 AM

Re: 70 HP / less than 300 lbs?
 
That would make a hell-uv-a flat-track motor! Does it sound cool?

mscuddy 03-21-2005 08:07 AM

Re: 70 HP / less than 300 lbs?
 
Ironic isn't it? Talk about things going full-circle.



First you had the two-stroke single replacing four stroke twins in off-road racing and riding.



Then the two stroke ruled the Earth for a while, only to be replaced by the four stroke single.



And now back to four stroke twins for off-road racing and riding.



What's next? Porridge pot helmets & Uvex goggles? Leading link forks?



Seriously though, I was watching MX on the tube the other night and noticed there were almost no 2 strokes in the 250 class.



We had to expect that, since it was only a matter of time until the factories got the technology sorted out, and 4 stokes started kicking some a$$ (without blowing up, that is).



And to top it off, my buddy who rides a KX500 is selling it and buying a new CRF450X. (I'll keep my CR500 for a few more years, thank you)



The 2 stroke is dead! Long live the 2 stroke!






Buzglyd 03-21-2005 08:15 AM

Re: 70 HP / less than 300 lbs?
 
I'm still jonesing for an RD400 but I'll take a few deep breaths and let it pass.

mscuddy 03-21-2005 08:29 AM

Re: 70 HP / less than 300 lbs?
 
I agree somewhat, but technology is making leaps and bounds in the 4 stroke off-road game.



Lighter engine components mean more power and quicker revving. Better designs lessen reliability and maintenance issues.



And as you can see in the 250 class nowadays, hardly anyone rides a 2 stroke.



And then you have the safety nazis and environmental kooks who hate the 2 stroke for what it is, noisy and dirty. Let's face it, the two-stroke dirt bike is on the ropes, goin' down for the 10 count.



Hey, what ever happened to the Orbital 2 stroke engine design, that combined 2 and four stroke technologies? That seemed a good compromise between power and the environment (two stroke top end, four stroke lower end).


christian_gates 03-21-2005 08:43 AM

Re: 70 HP / less than 300 lbs?
 
I think that this bike is cool as heck, and will be a relative failure in the U.S. Without a tiered licensing structure basically mandating the purchase of low-power / small-displacement bikes, a bike like this doesn't make economic sense for most U.S. consumers.



A 600cc-ish supersport offers more performance and will continue to provide thrills, chills and probably spills too for a wider range of riders in number and for individual riders over a longer time.



Note that I'm not endorsing supersports as fundamentally "better" than this concept - outside of racing there's too much variety for that word to have much meaning in most motorcycle discussions - I'm just saying that, in the U.S., it will never really take off.



That being said, I hope against reason that they sell enough so that I can see one in person.



cdg

seruzawa 03-21-2005 09:08 AM

Re: 70 HP / less than 300 lbs?
 
Hey. I went snowmobiling last weekend and on the way home in my truck we almost hit a Golden Eagle that was eating some road kill! Two bad I wasn't on a Harley, eh?

seruzawa 03-21-2005 09:34 AM

Re: 70 HP / less than 300 lbs?
 
You know what else is ironic? The announcement of this motor isn't met by an avalanche of catcalls from MOrons about how inferior it is because it doesn't have 100+ hp. I was beginning to believe that 100HP was the minimum acceptance level for a motorcycle.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:01 AM.