weight saving's vs reliability

2stroke · Jul 8, 2003

as for me-weight is not a problem. Proud to say I outweigh every bike I own. (275 lbs) think linebacker, not fatass. Saving a few pounds on one of my machines would be like throwing a deck chair off the titanic. I would happily tow another 20 lbs for some durability.

Also, I am just a casual rider. I race, but only vintage. Talk about a heavy ride. Come to think of it she's not all that reliable either so what gives? heh heh

john stu · Jul 9, 2003

i sold my 99yz400 right after the wrist pin sheared in half, it had less about 10 hours on it.now i ride a two stroke again even though i really liked the 4-stroke power.

CR Swade · Jul 9, 2003

Hey Tommygun, I'll give you credit for being concerned, but come on. Bikes are waayyy stronger than during the 70's and 80's. Bikes would snap like crazy. Shocks would snap (Maico owners can tesify to this), frames would break (go ahead KX owner and step up to the plate). Heck, a selling point for a KX was the frame had never been re-welded. None of these bikes were really feathery in comparison to today's bikes. You take any of the older generation bikes and subject them to the rigors of racing and they just didn't hold up, let alone hold up to the major air gathered by today's leapers. I'd bet you can get quite a few stories from older racers that used to keep the handy-dandy tow strap in their fanny pack.

2stroke · Jul 10, 2003

Originally posted by john stu
i sold my 99yz400 right after the wrist pin sheared in half, it had less about 10 hours on it.now i ride a two stroke again even though i really liked the 4-stroke power.

yeah, a guy I know had a similar experience. The bottom end on his 400 went out after 1 season. Bearings didnt seize, but got all crappy. Way too early.

markthomps · Jul 24, 2003

CR Swade: Since I race both vintage and mod and have been around since just after the dinosaurs croaked, I can tell you that most of the Eurp vintage bikes were (are) grossly overbuilt, often using street bike components. Lots of those bikes couldn't snap a frame if Godzilla stepped on them. The early Jap mxers came at it from the opposite direction, thinking it was all horsepower and light frames. Eventually we ended up with today's mod stuff that is generally pretty damn reliable. As for the "'early 80s stuff" not holding up, I have a 81 490 Maico that goes about two full seasons between overhauls, has a foot of suspension at each end, and can still kick ass on a lot of the mod stuff.

CR Swade · Jul 24, 2003

Originally posted by markthomps
As for the "'early 80s stuff" not holding up, I have a 81 490 Maico that goes about two full seasons between overhauls, has a foot of suspension at each end, and can still kick ass on a lot of the mod stuff.

As long as the shock didn't snap in two...or the kickstarter didn't grenade itself. :confused:

And yes, finding a KX that DIDN'T have a oddly placed weld bead spray painted black was indeed a rare find. Or how about the Yamaha wheel assy's w/ the Z spokes, snapped KX dogbones, paper thin YZ exhaust pipes, handlebars that snapped instead of bending.

Now as far as my early 80's (81, 83, 85, & 86) Hondas, yeah they were and still are tough(extruded swingarms, cradle-style frames, decent hubs), but I don't think any more than today's bikes.

I do however take issue w/ the newer large-axle designs. The bearing has actually shrunk (although O.D. is larger, I.D. has gotten larger by a larger proportion in relation to O.D.) and seems to create more heat-related bearing failures. My older CR's could take quite a bit of abuse w/ just normal maintenance, but the trusty 01, as well as my KTM's couldn't keep a bearing in longer than about 2-3 months.

ALarsh · Jul 25, 2003

Can somebody fill me in on the problems with the CRF150 please?

HomeMadeSin · Jul 27, 2003

Good stuff.  I think the more focused the machine (CR, YZ, etc), the narrower the applications (enduro, desert racing, etc).  IMO, CR's are breed for motorcross more than ever before.  It may not have the "beef" to handle a ricoche off a tree in a hare scramble. 

I used to race my 84 CR250 in hare scrambles and wouldn't think twice about my current '96 Cr500 doing the same.  But, those designs are dated.  Yamaha has the WR for other forms of racing outside MX/SX, but I don't know enough about them.

I was seriously thinking about getting a CRF450 for the ultimate in power, 4-stroke torque and potential in dual sport.  But this thread has me thinking about keeping my 500.  I like the XR650, but it probably handles like an ol' 100cc Hodaka.

BTW, a modern Corvette is rated for 25 mpg and actually does a bit better.  Does a Corsica get that?  Within some realm of reason, you can have your cake and eat it too!

MrLuckey · Jul 27, 2003

Originally posted by HomeMadeSin
a modern Corvette;is rated for 25 mpg and actually does a bit better

Is that if you're driving it like a Corsica or driving it like a Corvette should be? :)

truespode · Jul 27, 2003

Originally posted by MrLuckey

Is that if you're driving it like a Corsica or driving it like a Corvette should be? :)

I don't know... maybe we can ask Travis Pastrana :p

Ivan

Ol'89r · Jul 28, 2003

Ok, I've been around even longer than markthomps and I think you guys don't really know how good ya got it. :eek:

Back in the day, (damn, there's that phrase again, :confused: )we had to take stock street based motorcycles and make race bikes out of them.

If you wanted to go racing, you took a stock bike, took it completly apart, engine and frame. You would have to spend countless hours drilling, grinding, polishing each and every part in the engine just to save a few ounces of weight. You had to change the cams, pistons, valves, valve springs, etc, etc, to aftermarket parts or you were not gonna be in the hunt. All moving parts had to be magnafluxed or zyglowed and shot peaned to increase their life. All of this had to be done again after each meeting.

Frames had to be highly modified and gusseted or they would break. There wasn't much aftermarket suspension available so you had to machine your own parts to make your forks and shocks work a little better. We replaced stock steel gas tanks with fiberglass tanks and made our own pipes.

Even after spending all the time and money to do this you would still have to hold your breath during a race for fear something was going to break. Those of you that saw On Any Sunday may remember Mert's Harley failing to finish race after race. And that was on the Factory level.

Today, anybody can walk in to your local Dealer and purchase a state of the art racing motorcycle. A bike so close to what the Factories are using it's not even funny.

These bikes are fantastic. They are made from aluminum, chrome moly, titanium and un-breakable plastic. They are made to crash. When you crashed one of the old race bikes you usually did a lot of damage to it. Bent forks, bent frames, broken wheels. The new bikes, you just pick em up and keep on going. That's if you didn't destroy your radiators.

The modern day bikes are designed to drop out of the sky from 10, 20+ feet and land without breaking in half. In the old days we barely got them more than a couple feet off the ground and they still broke in half. That is, as long as your wheels didn't collapse first.

Today, I see very few bikes failing to finish a race due to mechanical failures yet people still complain. There is very little maintainance involved to keep one of these bikes going for an entire season.

Quit yer bitchin and go ride some of the best bikes on the planet. :thumb:

Just my $ .02

dirt bike dave · Jul 28, 2003

Well said, '89er. :cool:

Rich Rohrich · Jul 28, 2003

Originally posted by Ol'89r
Quit yer bitchin and go ride some of the best bikes on the planet. :thumb:

DAMN, I wish I had said that (well ALL OF IT actually :worship: ).

Nicely said Ol'89r :thumb:

James · Jul 28, 2003

Originally posted by Ol'89r
Ok, I've been around even longer than markthomps and I think you guys don't really know how good ya got it.

Quit yer bitchin and go ride some of the best bikes on the planet.

Maybe we should stick to the most recent decade :confused:

I guess if I were around back when Model Ts were the thing, I'd be real happy to drive a Yugo right now too. But I wasn't and I'm not. Sure am glad they worked out that hand-cranking thing ;)

In my very specific example, the reliability sacrafice for weight savings is quite apparent in one model year (2001-2002). Maybe things were a whole lot worse several years ago, and maybe the CRs peaked in 2000/2001 (or earlier according to some) and we are on the down side going after super light trick bikes that provide minimal additional benefit to most of us (probably even including Rich) at the expense of increased maintenance and broken parts. I suppose there are a bunch of you out there that enjoy shimming/replacing valves and putting up with all of the other CRF quirks...but not me. I'd rather spend that time goofing up my suspension. :think:

So, until I start approaching pro level riding, I will be more than happy riding my 2000/2001 bikes and I'll gladly sit back and watch you guys deal with your eroding valves, bent subframes, failing rear brakes, cracking plastic, frayed powervalve cables, and exploding rims. When I can actually take advantage of that little extra horsepower and the 6lbs of weight savings...I am sure my mechanic will be able to replace the valves for me after every race.

:thumb:

markthomps · Jul 28, 2003

I'll happily defer to 'Ol89r's much advanced age. Amazing memory for such a relic, and yeah, he's got me beat on years. As for bent shocks on Maico's, that was one batch of shocks in '83 from Corte Cosso that hadn't had the shafts properly heat-treated or something. Typical Italian quality (well, that will probably get me flamed . . .). For what it's worth, I race a 2000 CR250 and no longevity problems. Two best racing friends are on '03 versions of the YZ250 and CR450. They race weekly and do little or no maintenance beyond filters and oil. No problems with either bike at this point.

Ol'89r · Jul 31, 2003

Originally posted by James

Maybe we should stick to the most recent decade

I guess if I were around back when Model Ts were the thing, I'd be real happy to drive a Yugo right now too. But I wasn't and I'm not. Sure am glad they worked out that hand-cranking thing

:eek: OUCH! That hurt!!! :scream:

James. It is because of my many 'decades' in the industry that I can say that with confidence. I suppose if your knowledge of the sport only spans one decade or part of one decade, it would be hard to envision what the pioneers of the sport had to endure to get us where we are today.

Over this time I have seen with my own eyes the evolution of the motorcycle. From the heavy, converted street bikes of yesteryear to the space age weapons we enjoy today.

Dirt bikes are in a constant state of evolution. We keep asking for lighter, faster, better handling bikes. The manufactures give us what we ask for. With new technology comes a certain amount of failure. Just like in the old days when we used to have to carve our spokes out of oak trees. :confused: Ok, let's not go that far back. But, you can't tell how thin to carve your spokes until you break one. Then you know not to make them that thin or they will break.

The owners of these new bikes are part of the process. We test these machines for the manufactures. They give us what they think will work and if it doesn't they change it for next years model. Most changes are made and tested on the race track. If it survives there, it should be good for the masses.

There will always be part failures. Parts with flaws. You just may get one of these bikes with a flaw. Doesn't mean the whole brand is a POS. When you count the numbers and see how many of these new bikes actually fail, it shows that the manufactures are doing a pretty good job.

My weapon of choice is not a Yugo, but a CRF450. I know I'm taking a big chance riding something like that at my advanced age, but us old guys need all the help we can get. ;)

This bike is so close to perfect right out of the box, it's not even funny. It has so much horsepower, I have to run home and change my 'Depends' every time I ride it. It not only has gobs of HP, it gets it to the ground. The handling is great. Steers like a flat tracker and the suspension will soak up most anything you aim it at.

I also own a 91 CR250 and a 83 XR350 and just sold a 99 Yamaha 400F and when I compare my CRF to my other bikes they are not even in the ballpark.

Try as I might, I just can't find anything to bitch about this bike.

Just my $ .02

James · Jul 31, 2003

LOL...It wasn't meant to hurt...just re-focus the debate. :confused: I am sure you were younger than driving age when the Model Ts became available :scream:

I understand your point and I am not discounting the evolutions that had to be endured in years past (as I have owned and ridden bikes from the 70s and 80s) and there is no doubt in my mind that the bikes are better now overall. But the theme of this thread has been, what is the correct balance of performance and reliability....not if we would all choose to go rescue Can Ams out of the salvage yard and ride those instead.

The factories have more than enough opportunity to test their designs either through traditional R&D/testing or by testing them on the track with the factory teams. I didn't volunteer to be a test rider, I don't get paid to be a test rider, nor did I receive my bike for free in order to test it.

There is no reason why buyers of 02 CRFs and 02+CRs should have had to test, or continue to test the airbox that was redesigned to save a few ounces. Would your CRF be less perfect if it had the 01 and previous rear brake caliper that may have weighed 6 ounces more but had nearly twice the brake pad and didn't overheat? Do you think if your bike came with Stainless Steel valves that you'd lose any time in needing the depends?? I don't think we'd have a hard time finding a slew of riders that would complain about these items...and on these, I'd say Honda wasn't doing a very good job....not just on a couple bikes.....but a couple model years.

Professional racing teams have the money to completely rebuild the bike before each race....most of us don't. So I hope that the trend of providing the fastest and lightest bikes to the masses doesn't bring us to the point of having to completely rebuild the bike before each ride. I am not fast enough to justify the maintenance I have to do now.....much less if it gets any worse.

But I think we probably agree more than we disagree...I think I am just coming at it from a different angle :thumb:

Ol'89r · Aug 1, 2003

Originally posted by James
LOL...It wasn't meant to hurt...just re-focus the debate. I am sure you were younger than driving age when the Model Ts became available

AWWWW CRAP! :scream: He did it again. :)

No worries James, Just kiddin' with ya. It's pretty hard to hurt my feelings. Even Elk has tried.

I just have to laugh at some of the things people complain about. The author of this thread thought it was lame for Honda to make him change two oils instead of one. Both engine and gearbox. Well, that's a good thing. I would rather have to take a couple extra minutes to change both oils than to have my gearbox oil and all of the bits and peices floating around in there mixing with my engine oil.

There is 127 responses to a thread about Hondas stupid idea of installing a rubber grommet on the valve stem. Makes it hard for him to air his tires. Well, thats a good thing too. Keeps dirt and grit from getting between your tire and tube. There's a reason for all this stuff.

Most of the technology we enjoy today has been around for many years. Only now do we have the materials to support it. With lighter, stronger alloys. Slicker anti friction coatings, harder plating processes, etc, etc.

The best is yet to come. Just pick a color, they are all good. :thumb:

Ol'89r

Rich Rohrich · Aug 1, 2003

Originally posted by James
The factories have more than enough opportunity to test their designs either through traditional R&D/testing or by testing them on the track with the factory teams.

That isn't even close to being true given the market expectations. Consumers in most industries including ours drive incredibly short product cycles and real testing is a luxury that rarely gets it's due. I'm not saying it's right, just a fact of life these days. If it's any consulation , it's much WORSE in the computer industry. ;)

Hogwylde · Aug 5, 2003

One thing nobody's bothered to mention in this Aluminum VS Steel debate is fatigue life.

(Now this is a generalization..) Aluminum has a definate fatigue life compared to steel. Take a piece of steel, put it under stress (less than enough to cause permanent deformation) and it will return to it's original shape. Do this 30,000 times and it will still return to it's original shape. Do this same thing to a piece of aluminum, and it will fail. Your typical aluminum framed jumbo jet is good for about 30,000 take-offs and landings before being retired. The same jumbo jet made of steel would last a whole lot longer, but you would never be able to make it fly!

Maybe this has something to do with the matter seeing the amount of stress involved with jumping motocross bikes. But then again, how many OLD motocross bikes do you see racing?

Just something else to ponder.....

James · Aug 5, 2003

Originally posted by Rich Rohrich

That isn't even close to being true given the market expectations. Consumers in most industries including ours drive incredibly short product cycles and real testing is a luxury that rarely gets it's due. I'm not saying it's right, just a fact of life these days. If it's any consulation , it's much WORSE in the computer industry. ;)

You make a good point and I am not going to disagree with you entirely. I can sort of see where this came into play on the 02 CRF with the valve issue. I suppose it could take some run in time for this issue to develop. I don't think it would have been impossible for them to put 30-50 hours (roughly the failure point on many of the bikes) on a test engine or two during the CRFs development period. How long did that take to bring that one to market...2 years or more? What was the timeframe before it's race debut and actual release? It is possible this was a production issue as opposed to a design problem and that the test engines worked flawlessly.

But to resort to using two of my other examples:

The tiny Honda rear brake could have VERY EASILY been tested for several races or an entire season before they made the production change IF they wanted to. Just slap it on LaRoccos 2001 and see what happens.

2002 Airbox revision on the CRs could have been tested for a session or two and found to be defunct if they were actually paying attention. It only takes a ride or two for it to suck dirt especially if you take the subframe off at all.

I stand by my comments that they have the "opportunity," and they make the choice as to whether the time and money gets devoted to that testing.

TRUCE Ol'89r :thumb:

weight saving's vs reliability

2stroke

john stu

CR Swade

2stroke

markthomps

Sponsoring Member

CR Swade

ALarsh

HomeMadeSin

MrLuckey

Fire Marshall Ed

truespode

Moderator / Wheelie King

Ol'89r

dirt bike dave

Sponsoring Member

Rich Rohrich

Moderator / BioHazard

James

Lifetime Sponsor

markthomps

Sponsoring Member

Ol'89r

James

Lifetime Sponsor

Ol'89r

Rich Rohrich

Moderator / BioHazard

Hogwylde

James

Lifetime Sponsor

Similar Topics

weight saving's vs reliability

Sponsoring Member

Fire Marshall Ed

Moderator / Wheelie King

Sponsoring Member

Moderator / BioHazard

Lifetime Sponsor

Sponsoring Member

Lifetime Sponsor

Moderator / BioHazard

Lifetime Sponsor

Similar Topics

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency