pace said:
Bruce is right. It was considered more technologically advanced because an electronically operated valve can make use of sophisticated computer control. It's hard to achieve that with a mechanical valve, so they essentially operate in a binary/ternary fashion.
In practice this probably helped contribute to the overly-linear power delivery of the CR motor, so technology can certainly be poorly applied..
I didn't say it wasn't considered so...I said that I wouldn't consider it as such......Some people
consider the extra displacement allowed to 4 strokes as a technological advancement too...I don't....
Advancement is the same as progress...Was there progress made ? Was the CR250 made better as a result ? IMHO it resulted in technological retracement...It was just old technology being applied to a 2 stroke powervalve...If it performed better then it would be an advancement but it ended up being more of a redundant technological gimmick that resulted in a retracement in performance...Kind of like like the nutty professor walking into the kitchen in the morning and pressing a button on the wall that sets off a chain reaction of events and instead of having a nicely cooked breakfast he gets burnt toast and raw egg on the cabinent because it missed the frying pan...Now nutty professor has a mess to clean up in addition to having to cook his own breakfast.....It's technology per se, but not an advancement.
What was implied was that 2 stroke was dead and there's no more to be gained from
advances in 2 stroke technology because the CR250 was"
the most technologically advanced"...I disagree.
Maybe the manufacturers will get a break from the AMA and we get the "technological advance" of extra displacement relieving the R&D departments from having to develop something that really is new and improved.