Review of the mag writeup

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?

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

Click to expand...

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.

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)

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.

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