Review of the mag writeup

[cujet]

I read the mag over the last few days. I must say, I came away a little disapointed. Whlie it was well written and had a fair bit of technical information on the bike, it fell short of the information I had hoped for.

Maybe I am too technical, but I would have liked to have seen a dyno chart including comparisons to modern bikes HP and torque curves.

I also would have liked to hear a bit more data about the engine. After all, that is what makes this bike what it is. How fast is it? Does it actually out accel a modern bike? What I read is that it felt like it had a slipping clutch! To me that means it felt down on midrange power. I guess the mag writeup was not clear to me. I can understand a drag race, a roll on drag race, a dyno or other comparison. I just cannot interpret subjective ratings. The very same words can be said about a Honda 150.

I know I am asking alot from the mags, but how does it compare to a KTM525? CRF450X? WR? ect. How about the other internet bikes?

Does anyone else here agree?

Chris

 

[Okiewan]

Couple of comments.

1) I was surprised they called any one bike out like that. They worked hard on that bike and where proud of it, as they should be.
2) Dyno's are for spec monkeys :p. Very seldom does a dyno graph relate to how a bike is on the track or trail. Peak HP? Who cares. How fast someone can go on any given circuit is what matters. Example.. I pull better lap times on a 250F than I do on a 450F. Am I a pro that gets every hp out of a bike, no. That being said, I'm sure we wouldn't mind putting the CR500AFX on the dyno against any bike in the review, for whatever that's worth.
3) The "clutch slipping", "chain stetching" comments. If you've spent any time on a CR500, you'll know the mid hit is arm ripping, monsterous. These guys apparently expected that, we didn't want it. We wanted controllable power... thus the comments about the bike hooking up everywhere and not "killing the rear tire". Massive power looks good on a dyno, but.... unless it hooks-up, it's just a useless number. At a legal sound level (or any level) there is NO WAY the DRZ made more power.. sorry guys. Is the dyno on dirt? Or, pure traction? Until they make a dirt dyno, I couldn't care less about a controlled run on a machine. Of course for those that just ride the dyno, it matters.

Last comment...

I've read many of the forums involved, it's gone from damning the magazine to saying "we won" the un-winnable, un-shootout.... neither of which is right. Ego's are playing a huge roll here but in reality, it was just supposed to be about the mag not believing those "Internet People" could actually produce bikes. Don't believe DR Mag was out to promote how squared away the boards are. They would win either way... we make bikes they get to do "nice" reviews...we don't provide a bike... they are justified in believing we just complain about their articles and can't pull together. IMHO, they just found out differently. Suddenly, they are getting "feedback" on a large scale and it's not always what they want to hear... easy reaction? Discount it as "those people". Communication in the moto world has always been one-way. They print it, we believe and buy it. Now, they find out the hard way that, a lot of time, we think it's crap. They just aren't used to feedback.

Congrats to ALL the boards for stepping up. As it is, I've got to go put some virtual conditioner in my virtual pool at my virtual house that holds my virtual CRF so my virtual wife will swim virually while I go ride virtually this weekend. Or is that virtually ride?

 

[likelite]

i think they did a good job with the article.they should of had a parts list for all the bikes.i know they will have one on there site but they should put it in the mag.they have also done this with some of there other project bikes over the past few months and i don`t like it.other thanb that i am proud to be subscriber to this fine and classy web of people.

 

[cujet]

OK, I am not damming the mag. I liked the writeup. Just wanted more, that is all.

Also, everyone involved is to be congratulated!

I know that bike is fantastic, and would love to own such a bike. Maybe my disappointment was that I wanted the bike's writeup to be say it was better than anything they have ever ridden!

Okie, Dyno charts meaningless? Hogwash. They do, in fact, depict aspects of engine performance quite well. Anyone who compares a CR250 to a CRF450 on the dyno can see why the 450 often outperforms the 250. Dyno;s are what engine tuners such as myself use to tune an engine! However I have not run a dirt bike on a dyno in years. So maybe I am missing something?

Okie, I do no circuit riding at all. Small bikes do not interest me. I am sure a small, light weight bike will kick my butt on a track. Let's see that bike hit over 100MPH where I ride! Now you understand my lifelong ownership of big bore 2 strokes. Light and fast. And, yes, I have plenty of seat time on the arm ripping CR5. And, I think stock ones are down on power.

Chris

 

[Okiewan]

Anyone who compares a CR250 to a CRF450 on the dyno can see why the 450 often outperforms the 250.

Out performs it on the dyno. Yay! I don't ride a dyno. If you ride all desert or anywhere where all that matters is top end, yeah, raw HP wins. That wasn't my point. For that, I'll take a KTM 950 thanks. Besides, just lose 15 lbs; you can't buy enough performace to equal it :p

To me and mr average, it makes little or no difference. We'll never use more than a stock bike no matter how much we think we need that dyno tuned extra hp. Give me a stock MX'er, jetted correctly and I'm good to go. Port it with more on the bottom for the average rider ... all that matters is if I can feel it on the track. I have no idea what my CRF makes peak and couldn't care less.

 

[cujet]

Point taken.

However, for those who missed my point, the "wide torque curve" of the CRF450 is the magic. The 250 2t and the 450 4t often produce similar peak numbers. The dyno chart will show these facts quite clearly. It is not a dyno race I am interested in, It is the torque curve.

Hey OKIE, I lost 50 pounds! Not sure there is much more to loose! That aspect of performance has been addressed.

So, with that in mind, is there a dyno chart of the project bike? I am sure it is awesome!

Now to make it street legal!

Chris

 

[cnielse5]

I enjoyed the article. I was a little disappointed to see that our Bike was the second loudest bike (loudest after the DRZ exhaust got the longer tip). I think that we have to remember that with any specialized bike like this there are going to be people that do not like it because it does not fit their ideas of "the perfect Bike" I think the fact that DRN pulled together and AJ, Eric Gorr, and everybody else that had a hand in putting this together in such a short amount of time should take pride in the article and bike.
As a member of DRN. I take pride in the comments about our form being technically savy, mature, and we stayed out of the forum bashing. that is the kind of reputation that I want to be known for. I think That Jessie Zieglar (I think that is who wrote the article) paid us good tribute in the write up. and I even like the opinions.

good work DRN!

 

[AJ Waggoner]

Chris-
I've never dyno'ed the project bike, but with that port job , and the new stator/rotor /CDI assembly the AFX uses, certainly torque/hp is increased over stock. not by heaps and goobs, but a decent increase in the *right* places for trail use low to mid .(its an AFX and intended for that)

It diffinantly runs noticibly crisper and cleaner in the low end (digital CDI vs older analog OEM CDI )and if you read the article ,and sidebars,JL states how it seems like a diesel tractor,,and Jesse talks about it being "4 stroke like"

The whole design of that system and Erics porting was for a torque usable spread of power..
this wasnt to "detune" the 500, it was to spread out the power, and increase traction.
On a dyno it will have both an increase in hp, and an increase in the torque curve..but the IMPORTANT part would be where those increases where in the rpm curve!
Shear numbers mean very little as you noted in the CR250 vs CRF450 charts.
Its why you dont see mag tests do them all that often.It is just as "subjective" as saying anything else?
If they say "pulls like a diesel tractor" ,or "more like a 4 stroke" most people can relate better than trying to decipher a torque curve vs RPM placement on a dyno chart?

i'll give you my ride impression,and i have a decade or two on CR500's :)
This setup is very low end andmid range oriented, it pulls harder than stock, but over a broader range so seems much smoother..the reality is it is pulling just as hard (on the dyno) but that stock mid range arm ripping "hook" is broadened so it doesnt give the rider that sensation. It just starts pulling much earlier and pulls on thru a bit further.

It isnt meant to be a hp king, or scare you with its big hit.
So its not the setup i would build for every CR500 customer.

It was built to keep all that power hooked up to the ground and have very torquey controllable output.Like the old Maico 500 engines ;)

One thing i think effected the DR testers impressions were the WR gears.
They are the same as OEM at first and second, but are wider ratios third fouth and fifth.
As delivered the bike was geared(sprockets) to tall(stock) for the WR gearing(internal).
This would also make the bike appear more *mellow* third gear and up.(where you likely want it to then "open up" and HIT a bit!! )

I did not really care for it..and had zero experience in setting up a bike with those gears.. after some testing and speaking with other CR500 riders that have ridden with the WR gear setups ..I now know, what overall gearing(sprockets) would be best.

It wasnt that bad, but could have been set up better for that internal gear set.

Did i mention 30 days stinks to build and test a bike in?
Especially when I/we get those WR gears about 35 hours before the bike needs to ship? lol
That bike was built from the frame up ,in that time frame.
Not a diclaimer and not whining! LOL!
..just showing how little time there was for any shake outs of the details or setup. I
was completely stoked with the bikes final performance,especially in light of how little time we had to build it and dial it in.
( in a more normal situation i would have tested and dialed it in, for at least a couple of weeks before handing it off for a magazine review)

 

[robwbright]

To me and mr average, it makes little or no difference. We'll never use more than a stock bike no matter how much we think we need that dyno tuned extra hp. Give me a stock MX'er, jetted correctly and I'm good to go.

I couldn't disagree more. While the useability of the power spread is very important (i.e. why everyone likes the 4 strokes - and I understand why they do), I was faster in the first 10 minutes on the 144 than I was on the stock bike. That statement is based on my ability to clear certain sections on the 144 that I couldn't on the 125 - after taking the whole winter off from riding, so it wasn't because I was particularly sharp on my riding skills. For example, a double double section shortly after a corner.

The increase in (useable) power of the 144 definintely helps on the speed of corner exits.

Ironically, my results are worse because the classes I race in has grown from 4-8 riders to 12-15 riders.

And yes, there are sections of the track where I use the max HP output of the bike, so an extra 6-8 HP makes more than a little difference there.

Would I be even quicker on a 4 stroke 250? Perhaps. I'm sure I would be quicker on the 250f the longer the race went - i.e. 5 laps vs. 15 laps. But the HP increase on the 144 did make me faster early season this year than I was on the 125 late last year.

 

[cujet]

Thanks AJ, Okie,

That bike sounds like near perfection to me! Geared too tall, MAN that is just right :) Do I see a 120MPH dirt bike in my future?

Chris

 

[Okiewan]

You are completely missing the point Rob.
We're talking baseline capable bike. If the bike you have can't get you around the track, then it's rather obvious you either need more bike, less weight or more skills. My point was, with the 250 I am still able to do everything I was on my '05 450 and actually improve my lap times and last a lot longer.

Again, simply looking at a dyno graph and trying to determine which is a faster bike isn't the end all. How and where the hp/torque comes on (under various loads/rpm) can't really be accuratley discovered on a dyno.

BTW Rob... how many bikes have you owned and how do they compare to the 144? Just wondering what experiences bring you to your conclusions. No, I don't mean bikes you've spun a couple laps on either.

 

[AJ Waggoner]

rob- you have a valid point within the context of your situation?

but you are kind of comparing apples to oranges?

in the 125 class power is an advantage..
and always a big factor..
its the first thing a 125 impression is based on..


but how often is it true in the big bike classes?

this was an open class bike..
more hp on a 500cc 2 stroke is not likely to get you around the trails or track faster.. getting the over abundance of power to actually hook up might

 

[D Lafleur]

this was an open class bike..
more hp on a 500cc 2 stroke is not likely to get you around the trails or track faster.. getting the over abundance of power to actually hook up might

Exactly, I raced an almost stock RM250 in 2005. The bike made more than enough power, the trick was hooking it to the ground. 9 ounces of flywheel weight, an 18" rear wheel, a little taller gearing, Pro Circuit S/A ( the very quiet one <93db tested) and one slightly overweight, overaged kid on board did the trick.

The one day I decided to take the bike to the mx track, I had several people ask me about motor setup. Everyone was interested in how I had gotten the 250 motor to "make so much more power". I ran as fast through the soft parts of the track as any 450 bike there, I also turned on the flat slick areas quite well.

The bike actually made a little less power, however what was being made was being used.

 

[MACE]

I just think it's great the way Jimmy Lewis is stirring the pot. My other mag, DirtBike has been on auto pilot for years. Jimmy has lots of fresh ideas and knows how to rouse the rabble. The magazines are all whores to the advertising office to one extent or the other - it's just economic fact. Like Super Hunky in the old days, at least Jimmy is having fun with his joy buzzer hand shakes.

 

[3TV]

Hate to admit is, but I tended to agree with what Jimmy Lewis had to say, more or less. I didn't understand why in the world someone would build a street legal bike, complete with street tires, for a Dirt Rider Magazine test either. And whats the deal with auto clutches on every bike anyway? Still don't understand that one.

I liked the article, it was a new idea and interesting to read. I had never even heard of dirtrider.net before the article, and I came over here and checked out the forum because you guys are my new hero's. :nod: . You folks done built my dream bike. I owned an '85, '86, '87, and '97 CR 500 myself, but none of them held a candle to the Service Honda bike in the article. Good work folks!

3TV

 

[kmccune]

I didn't understand why in the world someone would build a street legal bike, complete with street tires, for a Dirt Rider Magazine test either.
3TV

I believe the idea was to build a street capable dirtbike. I have no idea how many hours over the years I have fantasized about one of the manufacturer building a real dirt bike, with a reasonable weight that can drive legally on the street. They just have not done it since the early 80s. Just because it can go on the street doesn't make it a street bike.

 

[mafols]

Checkout the 06' Husqvarna lineup of street legal enduro and supermoto machines....definately a step in that direction.

From what I hear, KTM will be doing the same thing in the very near future. :cool:

 

[Patman]

Overall I think it was one of the better articles I've read from the stand point of it being a "real world" write up that most fols could really relate to. The forums have a very large membership base and something that they were involved in is as close as the majority of those members might ever come to being in print. While the short deadline was a bit of a pain I think it also showed that the forums are able to pull something like this off and do it quite well.

I'll reserve my commentary on each forums decissions because it is just my opinion and I'm quite sure there are those that both agree and disagree with it. The auto clutches are a reasonably new item that makes off road bikes significantly easier to ride IF the user is familiar with how they work. The down side of putting one on a push button only bike was discovered as was having a rider on another that wasn't able or just didn't use an auto clutch equiped bike as it was intended. Overall I think for the applications everyone that picked them made a good choice some just didn't execute completly IMO.

Building a bike by group selection isn't easy as we all discovered. Doing it in a short time frame is even more difficult. I think each forum did a great job in pulling it off and it showed a wide range of options yet also similarities in getting dirty.

 

[kmccune]

Checkout the 06' Husqvarna lineup of street legal enduro and supermoto machines....definately a step in that direction.

From what I hear, KTM will be doing the same thing in the very near future. :cool:

My desktop wallpaper is now the 2007 EXC 450. It is a US model and is sporting turn signals markers and rear view mirrors so thanks for the heads up I may have to count my pennies carefully.....:nod:

 

[bigmickstar]

I thought the article was spot on for what it's worth. It feels to me people want a crowned hero here. I thought it was pretty clear none of the bikes built had adaquate testing time before the write up. I don't look at the short comings of any of those bikes as being hard evidence against those machines. You can't build a bullet proof bike on such short notice. I ride a '03 Service Honda myself so of course I wanted the AFX to destroy the competition. As I read the comparison there were impressions of the bike that I didn't like myself. But I understand them. It was a purpose built off road machine. I wouldn't like suspension that took the kick off of every launch, or a motor that ran like a 4 stroke. But those are subjective impressions anyways. It's anybodies opinion. But it was fairly clear to me the Service Honda was built on short notice and would have been a good deal better had time not been an issue.