Good and Bad about your bike (poll)
three...@my-deja.com
who thier reads are. They do the shoot outs on the bikes with a Pro in
mind, when in fact that more novice and intermediate riders read thier
magazine. I would like to take a poll of all the RMDers and find out
what you feel is the good and bad to your bike. What bike do you prefer
and why?
Thanks in advance to all that reply.
Later Andrew
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Leav Home
>what you feel is the good and bad to your bike. What bike do you prefer
>and why?
>
>
I had a 98 CR250, the only thing I didn't like about the bike was how "I" had
the suspension setup. It was way to stiff for me, I raced it like that and did
pretty good but I could have done so much better had the suspension been tuned
for me. I loved the way the bike felt, and the motor, christ was that thing
potent. Overall, I had no reason to sell it, it is an awesome bike. I had no
problem with the aluminum frame, just set the suspension and it works like any
other bike, but better. The only problem with this bike is that the plastic
slowly wears the aluminum where it makes contact. Just slap some velcro down
and check it everyonce in a while
I also had a 98 XR400, I loved that bike. I had the suspension revalved by
Factory Connection for the woods, and I'd have to say that it kicked ass. Keep
that thing in the woods and you'll live happily. I started moving towards
motocross and knew the XR wasn't designed for it, so I traded my XR for the 98
CR.
I loved both of those bikes, never had a problem with either of them,
stone reliable machines in my opinion. One thing you notice about Honda's is
that they stay solid and new feeling long after you take them out of the
showroom. I will always buy Honda's for that and many more reasons, I believe
they build the best machines money can buy.
Now I'm on to a 2000 CR250, and I think I'm going to stop hopping from
bike to bike now. I'm going to keep this one for a while and slowly make it
into a works bike. So far I have pro taper bars, those new cool looking Acerbis
moto handgaurds, an e-line carbon fiber skid plate, works connection radiator
braces and a Moose O-ring chain.
-Franky
Y2K CR250
EMARPLE
>what you feel is the good and bad to your bike. What bike do you prefer
>and why?
'00 CR250: Ridden by a 5'8", 165#, 43 year-old, optimisticly intermediate level
rider.
Bad:
* Suspension (particularly the forks) is too stiff for enduros and rocky
trails. This could also be a contributing factor to the next entry below...
* Could use a bit more bottom end for tight, technical terrain. Again this only
seems to apply in enduros and rocky trails. And my judgement could be tainted
by the fact that I came off a bike blessed with gobs and gobs of low end and
mid-range power.
* Stock Dunlop 490 front tire really sucks.
Good:
* Everything else. Ergos, handling, brakes, and overall quality.
Personal preference stuff:
* The handlebars are kinda tall. Contrary to the magazines, it isn't the bars
or the bar mounts, it's the relative position of the triple clamp. I moved my
ProTaper (CR Hi-bend) bars and clamps from my KX over to the CR, so those
remain constant. I really like the taller, roomier bars for enduro and trail
riding because it's easier to ride forward on the bike in the attack position
and it's more comfortable when standing. They aren't like ape-hangers or
anything, but I can see where the bars may be too tall for some people.
BTW, thanks for the thread, I'll be curious to see what other responses you
get.
Everett
'00 CR 250 (Tree Finder...the next generation)
'74 BMW R90/6...(gentleman's express)
'91 KX 301...(for sale)
'85 KDX 200..(for sale)
'75 Kawasaki 400 S3 two-stroke triple...(for sale)
hy...@my-deja.com
Bike is absolutely fantastic except for the suspension when pertaining
to mx or sx. The soft suspension works well in the woods, but if you
jump the bike in an aggressive manner, it will bottom, especially if
you weigh over 170#. The power delivery of this bike is superb, and
mine has held up great over the past year with normal routine
maintenance. Would definitely buy it again if I had to make the choice
between the big manufacturers and a 250...BUT....I would get the
suspension revalved as soon as possible!
Steve
In article <8448je$sf7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
three...@my-deja.com wrote:
> It seems to me that DirtRider and DirtBike magazine doesn't quite know
> who thier reads are. They do the shoot outs on the bikes with a Pro
in
> mind, when in fact that more novice and intermediate riders read thier
> magazine. I would like to take a poll of all the RMDers and find out
> what you feel is the good and bad to your bike. What bike do you
prefer
> and why?
>
> Thanks in advance to all that reply.
>
> Later Andrew
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
If at first you fail,
destroy all evidence
that you ever tried
in the first place.
J Payer
1998 Suzuki RM250.
The good: Great bottom end, good midrange, awesome forks, bike can turn
on a dime, brakes are good.
The so-so: shock is a little busy but I can live with it, could use a
little more mid.
The bad: no top end to speak of (Eric Gorr is fixing that as we speak),
graphics came off the first day I rode the bike, seat cover is thin.
J&K
Special thanks to the following:
Jim Cook at www.Smackovermotorsports.com Jeff at www.mxsouth.com and
John Duffy at www.appliedrace.com
Eric Myers
<SNIP>
> I would like to take a poll of all the RMDers and find out
> what you feel is the good and bad to your bike. What bike do you prefer
> and why?
DR350SE
It's a street legal play bike which I can ride to 100% of "my" ability
and sometimes beyond which pushes the bikes ability. It does everything
I want it to do for trail riding affords me the ability to ride it out
on the street to extend or augment my exploring range. It got my wife
interested enough to give trail riding a try and she's going to even get
her street license next year to allow her more saddle time.
What I don't like about it:
Very little...If I have to pick, I'd much rather have it weighing in at
230lbs rather than 300lbs. Not so much for rideability but for
pickitupagain ability. That fatboy gets heavier everytime it hits the
ground.
The tires and suspension require some change to fit "me" better, but, I
imagine everybike goes through a bit of personalization.
XT350 My Wifes Bike
She's satisfied with the bike save for its weight. To heavy for her to
pickit up if it falls down...though I don't know how light she'd have to
go to be able to lift a motorcycle off from its side, maybe 220lbs.
She'd prefer electric start but not a huge issue for her. I liked it
because it was inexpensive to buy for her first bike and low enough to
the ground so she could flat foot it.
XR70
My 8 year old son loves his bike because it's very easy and very
forgiving to ride.
He says:
He's happy with the comfort level, he doesn't "have" to shift very
often, it's small and can go in small places, quiet and it's pretty
fast.
Bad things:
He wishes it had a headlight, speedometer, wishes it sounded like a two
stroke and that's all he can think of right now.
Eric Myers
99 Suzuki DR350SE Mine
98 Honda VTR1000 Mine
89 Yamaha XT350 Wife's
98 Honda XR70R Son's
"People don't know what they like, they like what they know"
Jay C
>magazine. I would like to take a poll of all the RMDers and find out
>what you feel is the good and bad to your bike. What bike do you prefer
>and why?
'98 XR400 for 210# NE woods rider:
Overall opinion: Best bike made for tight, gnarley New England woods.
Specifics: Absolutly flat powerband - plenty of grunt right off idle and
stays that way up to about 9 grand. Motor signs off a little early, but no
one really gets to rev in the tight woods anyway. Suspension is good once
forks are re-sprung for rider's weight. Some complain that the forks are
harsh, but I found them to work well once heavier springs were installed. I
do get jarred if I really slam something big - a mild midstroke spike, I
guess. I've heard Gold Valves are the ticket for this and I plan on getting
them someday (when I get a round tuit). I think the forks might be more of
a problem for a lighter rider (?). The shock works well - it sucks up just
about anything if you stay centered and I don't think I ever bottomed it
(and I HAVE tried). The bike can do small jumps fine - I've done 35-45 foot
tabletops without too much umpleasantness on the landings. It is NOT an MX
bike though, so don't even go there. Weight - yup, it has plenty... it's a
four-stoke - whatta ya gonna do? The bike hates sand. It is impossible to
get enough weight on the front end to carve in the sand due to the tank/seat
shape and the agressive head angle makes the bike unstable in the soft stuff
unless you really hang over the rear fender. The gas tank also creams you
nads if you try to drive way forward, but an A-Loop kit can fix this if you
are so inclined.
Jay
Jon Sosa
Motor: with stock pipe: ok bottom end, good midrange, no top end.
Funny, J Player says his has good bottom end? No way this bike has as much
bottom end as my former 92 KX 250 w/ ERIC GORR PORTING. So I may not be
compairing apples to apples.
Motor w/ Pro-Circuit pipe: no bottom end, a TON of midrange, good
top end. The bike hits hard with this pipe and has good over- rev. I have
gotten my motor back from Mr. Gorr, still waiting for Suzuki parts =(.
Suspension: Front: Really good for MX. Doesn't bottom no matter
how far you overjump or how hard you smack the whoops! Harescrambles is a
different story. They will start beating you up after 30-45min especially
the small braking bumps.
Suspension: Rear: Average for MX and play riding, poor for
harescrambles. Very busy over acceleration chop but doesn't bottom even
with the comp. clicker turned almost all the way out.
Chassis: Turns on a dime, but pays for it in stability.
Graphics self-destuct just looking at dirt, has the frame paint from hell!
Sure it comes off, but only after alot of hard riding. Bridgestone tires
suck. Clutch needs help but not as bad as MXA would have you believe.
Overall: DirtRider and DirtBike were both right and wrong on
this bike, right about the suspension and stability . Wrong on the motor,
well at least for slow ass me. At least for me with the PC pipe it has all
the top end I could want.
What I would change: Get the suspension redone for anything else
except MX or if you weight less than 180#. All the motor really needs is a
pipe. I sent my motor in to E.G. to get ported to get more low-end, and
because of the great deal Eric is running.
<three...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8448je$sf7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> It seems to me that DirtRider and DirtBike magazine doesn't quite know
> who thier reads are. They do the shoot outs on the bikes with a Pro in
> mind, when in fact that more novice and intermediate riders read thier
> magazine. I would like to take a poll of all the RMDers and find out
> what you feel is the good and bad to your bike. What bike do you prefer
> and why?
>
ted
Good: Cruises at 70+ and plays tunes. Reasonable weather protection. Low
seat height. Lots of storage to carry tools and come-alongs.
Bad: Very heavy, squirely in the mud, stock dunlops suck (S-12s made a big
improvement), suspension too soft (bottoms on doubles even at max air
pressure), not enough ground clearance (drags floorboards in sandy corners),
very undstable in the whoops.
(LOL)
Ted
J Payer
> Funny, J Player says his has good bottom end? No
> way this bike has as much bottom end as my former
> 92 KX 250 w/ ERIC GORR PORTING.
<snip>
Well, the bike in no way has the punch my 88 KX250 had in the midrange,
but it still has good mid. Just because the mid isn't as big as my KX
does not mean it still isn't good.
At the track we raced at most of the time this year, I can run a gear
high and just hook up everywhere, due to the bottom end and mid, but I'm
sure woods guys would like more down low. I was making reference to MX.
Peter Patton
someday though), but as far as the big four, I like Suzuki. My 98 250 may
lack a bit in power compared to the Honda, but it is very agile and easy to
flick around. After trying out my boy's 98 CR 250 and a friend's 99 KX 250,
I'd have to say that I could very easily get used to either of the two.
Tried lots of YZ's, though, and just can't get used to them.......don't
know what it is. Guess MAC got used to his pretty quickly. Maybe I just
need more time on one. I was able to very quickly become comfortable on the
YZ400F........go figure!
Peter
three...@my-deja.com wrote:
> It seems to me that DirtRider and DirtBike magazine doesn't quite know
> who thier reads are. They do the shoot outs on the bikes with a Pro in
> mind, when in fact that more novice and intermediate riders read thier
> magazine. I would like to take a poll of all the RMDers and find out
> what you feel is the good and bad to your bike. What bike do you prefer
> and why?
>
> Thanks in advance to all that reply.
>
> Later Andrew
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
http://www.minnesotamotocross.com
Pe...@minnesotamotocross.com
Motocross Rules!!
Peter 3 # 524
Peter # 739
Mike Baxter
It's a good bike. I bought it new in the beginning of '97 and have been
hammering on it ever since. I ride off-road in Northern California now and ride
enduro/X-country type trails. The only mods so far are as follows: FMF Fatty
pipe and Spark arrestor, Active CF reeds, tall seat foam, pro tapers, Scotts 3x
clamp and damper, honda master cylinder and braided SS front brake line.
Dislikes: Front brakes are weak as compared to CR's
Stock power "feels" weak compared to other 250's
Blue plastic looks crappy soon after your first couple crashes
seat foam - brick hard and really low
Likes: The engine lends itself to off-road work with good bottom to mid
transition. It has decent
over-rev and can still run with the new bikes in most cases.
Good clutch ( still on original and in spec.)
The suspension responds favorably to revalving (KYB)
It's a very stable bike and it handles well.
It's pretty reliable (only one failure - shock linkage)
--
Mike Baxter "Don't worry, I saw this done in a cartoon once!"
1997 YZ250 Want crash stories? www.dirtrider.net/motopain
ICQ#26379440 Aftershocks makes my suspension rock!
Cam Mitchell
The good: Pulls like crazy, always more than enough power for the
situation. Reliable, stay looking good over the years. If there's a
KX500 on the line, forget about getting a holeshot. Very stable
handling.
The so-so: Suspension is too soft for MX, 80s ergonomics.
The bad: too much power for a lot of situations. It really wears you
out fast racing. Doesn't turn worth a shit. Brakes, what brakes?
Generally a reliable bike but I've had a few problems with certain
parts.. Email for details if interested.
A great bike for the desert, or non-serious playriding. Lots of fun,
but not a good choice for a race bike.
YMMV.
--
'94 KX500 #71, CMA Open C.
Thanks to Lordco Auto Parts, Boyesen, Twin Air, Racer's Edge Motorsports.
Pete Plassmann
Good:
Broad, useable power (with Tassinari reed cage)..
Quality components; still feels "tight" after 3 years..
Very comfy for normal sized people, not built for midgets like most Jap
bikes. I can stand all day on this bike. This is the main reason I'll keep
this bike.
Great seat (once you get used to it).
Suspension works great for normal speeds in deep woods (rocks and roots).
Large tank capacity without getting in the way.
Bad:
Transmission ratios too close, or needs a sixth gear.
No Zerk fittings on the suspension linkage.
Forks are 50mm 'Zokes: they act wacko once you step up the pace, and it
costs $650 to fix them..
Lighting coil only puts out 35 watts.
Not as much low end as my old CR500.
Have to remove tank to remove plug.
Have to remove seat to remove air filter. ( These last 2 are important if
you go "swimming" a lot!)
Makes me want to ride too much!
Pete P.
Pete Plassmann
in PA!
Pete P.
Rowdy
bad:
- bars, tossed the stocker after a week for a Pro Taper
- fork sticktion developed after 2 months of riding,
switched to Marzzochi Magnum 45
- tank-seat ergo, switched to YZ400F tank and seat
then go me the high "Doug Henry" seat foam +
an Acerbis 3.4 Gal YZ400 tank to help mileage,
foam still too soft, legs are still bent more
than on a KTM
- timing HAS to be set to YZ400F to free up the mid range
okay but..
- clutch pull is strong, got me the Magura Hymec hydraulic
clutch for X-Mas
- bar position too close to rider,
will get Applied clamps these days from Scott F
- pilot jet (45) too lean, 48 works much better
- air box lid causes heavy sputtering in mid rpms at WFO,
until it is removed, that is ;-)
- soft suspension for my 230 pounds bathtub weight ;-)
top:
- engine power (41.5 hp at rear wheel with stock muffler!)
- thermal stability, coolant overflow reservoir works great,
boiling stops as soon as bikes moves even a little
bit out of the mud pit, no need to "wait for her
to cool down"
- power band width, two engines in one, can be lugged extremely
for tricky enduro sections, in special tests just
shift late for attack mode power.
- weight! 25 pounds less than a 620SC, same as XR400(!)
- reliability, +10000 miles zero maintenance, zero valve gap
adjustments!!, buddy's WR's rings all perfectly
within spec, perfect commuting machine summer
and winter, just "fill'er up and go".
about my ergonomic complaints:
i am 6'1" tall, long inseam, long arms, 230 pounds, feeling a bit
cramped on virtually all machines except big KTM 4 strokes or
bikes adjusted for rallies.
I truly can't imagine a stock WR is "high" for someone, it's a moped!
Rowdy
WRZ400H'98
bullwinkle
Good:
Broad, useable power (FMF Fatty pipe and silencer)
Good lowend
Not scary for a beginner or someone getting back into the sport
Plenty of power to grow with
Shifts well
Lighting coil
Plenty of information on it (if you look for '92 YZ250 info - same bike but
the WR has a different gearing)
Bad:
No Zerk fittings on the suspension linkage.
Suspension is soft. Had re-valved with Race-Tech and it made a BIG
difference
No headlight (good for those that do not race Enduro's)
Large Stock Tank - went to 92 YZ tank and just put an order in for an IMS
3.6 tank
Have to remove seat to remove air filter
And like Pete Said
Makes me want to ride too much!
Ivan Liechty
A#1 Annoyance
'93 WR250
ivan@dirtriderDOTGOESHEREnet
ignore DOTGOESHERE to e-mail
http://dirtrider.net/ivan
Gordon L Banks
> It seems to me that DirtRider and DirtBike magazine doesn't quite know
> who thier reads are. They do the shoot outs on the bikes with a Pro in
> mind, when in fact that more novice and intermediate riders read thier
> magazine. I would like to take a poll of all the RMDers and find out
> what you feel is the good and bad to your bike. What bike do you prefer
> and why?
Since you mentioned "with a Pro in mind", you're probably only talking
about race bikes, and not trail bikes, but here's my two-cents worth
anyway.
2000 Honda XR400R
Qualifier: This was my first dirt bike since 1983 (read that as an
indicator of little recent experience), and it was purchased for
eastern-type woods riding, not open terrain racing or motocross.
Where we do most of our riding, even the best riders seldom exceed
50 mph.
Jeers:
...forks need better valving for competition level riding, but they're
probably okay for general trail riding.
...needs a better skid plate for rocky terrain.
...stock seat is comfortable and good for casual rider, but its shape
makes it difficult for an aggressive rider to move far enough
forward.
...typical four-stroke overall weight.
...carburetor needs rejetting for best mileage and performance.
Cheers:
...a near perfect power band for woods riding.
...nothing needs to be removed for access to air filter or spark plug.
...typical Honda triple-seals means absolute minimal maintenance.
...easy oil and filter changes.
...very comfortable seat (but see Jeers).
...stock 33 HP can be increased by 10+% for less than $50.00.
...easy chain adjustments.
...reasonably easy valve adjustments (once or twice a year).
...good front suspension, great rear suspension.
...lots of built-in suspension adjustability.
...good (but not great) owners manual.
...great shop manual available at reasonable cost.
...comes with good (but not great) tires.
...easy to operate clutch.
...butter-smooth shifting with no extra neutrals.
...adjustable height brake pedal.
...lots of aftermarket parts available.
...a wealth of information available on the internet.
...typical Honda quality throughout... durable and reliable.
...short wheelbase and steep fork angle ideal for tight woods.
...idle to 6000 RPM power better than most 400cc four-strokes.
...its air cooled engine means more reliable, easier to service,
less prone to accident damage, and a lower center of gravity
for quicker handling (and it never "boils over!).
...built-in compression release for generally easy starting.
...manual compression release helps when bump starting and
clearing a flooded engine.
...three year extended warranty is available.
...very good gas mileage for long long rides.
...quiet exhaust, even when modified for better breathing.
Frequent XR400R Complaints that I don't share:
...the stock handlebars seem unpopular, but I'm fine with them.
...fork springs too light for 220+ lb. riders. I'm heavier than
220 in my riding gear, and the forks do bottom on big jumps,
but I love the soft front end for woods riding.
...some hate the stock tires, and so did I at first, but the
more aggressive I get, the better they work.
...lack of horsepower. This complaint probably comes from riders
accustomed to, or desiring, high-revving two-stroke type power.
I get outrun by better riders in the woods (they're easy to
spot... they're upright), but rarely by more horsepower.
...the gas tank graphics are said to come off easily, but I'm
having no problems with mine. Maybe it's because I don't spill
gas all over my tank, or maybe they're just better this year.
I've been riding this bike for four months now, and if I had to
buy a new bike tomorrow, I'd buy the same bike again. If planning
to do a lot of racing, however, I'd probably buy a lighter two-
stroke like a CR250, KX250, or KTM250/300. I notice an awful lot
of top woods riders are riding KX250's.
Gordon Banks
Huntsville, AL
2000 XR400R
1947 Body
"Once you're over the hill, you just pick up speed."
Pete Plassmann
Yep, I still subscribe.
Pete P>
Jon Sosa
most situations where I could run 3-4 on my KX, I have to run 2-3 on my RM.
This isn't a real big problem because of the midrange and top-end. (a lot
more than my KX).
Like I said I may not be compairing apples to apples, and there is nothing
wrong with the stock motor with a PC pipe. It is just my personal
preference that I want some more bottom end. I know it does have more
bottom w/ the stock pipe. Maybe it is a difference in jetting, terrain,
riding style? I don't know. But in no way was I flaming you or your opinon
John, just making my own observation on a damn good motorcycle.
js
P.S. 90% of my riding is on MX tracks, as for the woods riding. Well lets
just say it is really flat and treeless out here in Kansas. <lol>
J Payer <Pay...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22720-38...@storefull-127.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Wes Boles
> It seems to me that DirtRider and DirtBike magazine doesn't quite know
> who thier reads are. They do the shoot outs on the bikes with a Pro in
> mind, when in fact that more novice and intermediate riders read thier
> magazine. I would like to take a poll of all the RMDers and find out
> what you feel is the good and bad to your bike. What bike do you prefer
> and why?
Overall a great bike, my second KTM, but maybe a step backwards from a 98
in some respects.
Lows
1)Jetting from the factory is still in left field. And still chasing the
jetting, this one is even more picky than my 98 300! This is the single
most frustating part of owning a KTM. One of riding buddies got a new
KX250 and it just needed a minor clip change and it was good to go.
2) I guess that OEM DID chains are not up the task, my 98 had rivet
problems in the first thirty days and on the 00 same thing except 6
months old.
3) Fork not quite as plush as the 98
4) Who ever designed the front fender does not ride enduros or owns the
rights to the card holders.
5) Don't forget the steering damper if ever get out of 4th you will need
it!
Highs
1) Awesome motor that seems to have even more power than the 98 (maybe
why the jetting is picky?)
2) Front and rear suspension better balanced (valved?) from the factory
3) My god, so this is what a front brake is supposed to work like!
4) The mags all gave a low to the shorty clutch lever and until I figured
out the adjustment I was not fond of it. Now its pretty cool and all the
rest feel "old school" and for some reason slow.
5) Seat cover is pretty good for a factory cover, gripy but not too
gripy.
Yes I think that I will buy a 2001 model.
--
Wes
OCCRA 617
00 KTM 300 MX/C
96 KLX650
J Payer
> I've tried running this bike the same way you discribed,
> a gear high. In most situations where I could run 3-4
> on my KX, I have to run 2-3 on my RM. This isn't a
> real big problem because of the midrange and top-end.
> (a lot more than my KX).
No kidding?!?! I'm always a gear higher than everyone else. A lot of
guys ask what gear I'm hitting something in, and I'm always one higher
than they are.
> Like I said I may not be compairing apples to apples,
> and there is nothing wrong with the stock motor
> with a PC pipe. It is just my personal preference
> that I want some more bottom end.
I think personal preference does come into play, more so than anything
else. I want more top end, I actually want to know what it feels like
to "out horsepower" someone through a section. :-)
> I know it does have more bottom w/ the stock pipe.
> Maybe it is a difference in jetting, terrain, riding style?
> I don't know.
I know I'm jetted on the fat side, but I don't spooge and I don't foul
plugs. I dunno? I think riding style has alot to do with it. My style
= slow. :-)
> But in no way was I flaming you or your opinon
> John, just making my own observation on a damn
> good motorcycle.
No, no, I didn't think you were, and I hope my response didn't come
across as defensive. Written communication leaves a lot to be desired,
that's for sure.
> P.S. 90% of my riding is on MX tracks, as for the woods
> riding. Well lets just say it is really flat and treeless
> out here in Kansas. <lol>
LOL!
You'll have to let me know how your bike runs with the Eirc Gorr mods
with an aftermarket pipe. I'm going with his recommendation of Boyeseen
reeds and am going to use the stock pipe for now, but have a killer deal
lined up on a PC set-up (pipe and silencer).
Dave Dude
Bike:96YZ250
Bought used Nov 97
Motor Mods: Stage 2 "Larry Brooks" type motor mods(.020" spacer under
cylinder, head cut quite a bit, transfers "cleaned up") . Custom-made
PC pipe, shortened FMF Powercore silencer, Boysen Pro-Series reeds.
Stealhy Flywheel weight. Weisco piston.
Suspension Mods: Stiffer springs front and back. LCS position
sensitive damping mod to forks. Extended shock bladder. Revalved for
"old slow guy in the woods"
Other Stuff: Tag T2 bars, Applied Top clamp. WC Pro-Perch/lever and
frame guards and rear caliper guard and bash plate. Devol radiator
guards. Scotts Steering Damper/bar clamp. E-Line CF pipe guard. DSP CF
case saver. Fredette chain guide. RK X-Ring chain. 51t JT rear
sprocket. Cycra 2.9 gal tank and Pro-Bend barkbusters.
Stuff to put on: IMS Pro-Series SS footpegs, Fastline "CR" front brake
hose.
My thoughts: I really luv this bike. Motor has more "ass" everywhere
than I need. Runs great jetted too rich but really snarls nasty when
jetted crisp. Hold onto your nuts. Has enough low end to pull me
anywhere I am even in the wrong gear. The FWW is a must for woods
riding, I can't control all the power well enough without it.
Sometimes in fifth gear I look for another gear, wish I had extended
ratio gearbox but its probly a good thing I can't go that fast.
The suspension works great for me. I have the fork tubes up 5mm in the
clamps and the chain is short one link to help it turn better.
Problems: Swingarm cracked. Frame cracked. Mount tabs for rear brake
resevoir and one airbox/rear fender mount broke off. Steering stops
peened. Kickstarter gears and clutch basket gear wore out and got
sloppy. I hate the big tank, like the MX tank ergo's much better.
Dave Dude
96yz250
jeb
First bike:
98 KTM 380 M/XC bought new.
Highs:
-Awsome power that started way low and had good overrev
-Graphics that last
-Good ergos
-Easy clutch pull
-Fairly easy to start for an open bike
-Easy, no bolt, airfilter and sparkplug access
-3.2 gallon tank
-Metal flywheel cover
-High quality bearings and seals
-O-ring chain and Renthal sprockets
-Aluminum bars
-Owners kit included manuals and tools and fork protectors
-Came with a jetting kit. Too bad it's needed! ;-)
-Easy to get aftermarket parts for
-Factory warranty (length depends on if you race it)
-Nickel plated pipe with spark arrestor
Lows:
-Rear suspension had mid stroke harshness
-Forks springs sagged quickly
-Forks on my bike destroyed themselves
-Too much vibration for me
-Fat jetting
-Kickstarter pawl broke
-Water pump seal failed
-Poor dealer support/service
-Top gears too low on the MXC
-Slippery seat cover that delaminated
-Jetting kit did not have the needle I needed
-Expensive sparkplugs
-Expensive OEM piston kit
Overall, it was a reliable bike that I enjoyed very much. Just too much
vibration and power for tight woods racing for me.
Second bike:
99 KTM 250 E/XC bought new.
Highs:
-Good power but more flywheel effect down low with good overrev
-Graphics that last
-Good ergos
-Front and rear brakes are great and much improved over the 98
-Juice clutch has easy pull (especially with the Holeshot billet lever with
needle bearings)
-Very easy to start
-Easy, no bolt, airfilter and sparkplug access
-3.2 gallon tank
-Metal flywheel cover
-High quality bearings and seals
-O-ring chain and Renthal sprockets
-Aluminum bars
-Owners kit included manuals and tools but NO fork protectors
-Came with a jetting kit. Too bad it's needed! ;-)
-Easy to get aftermarket parts for
-Nickel plated pipe with spark arrestor
-Factory warranty (length depends on if you race it)
Lows:
-Rear suspension seems very good but I'm running comp all the way soft
-Forks are AWESOME. I wouldn't change a thing there.
-Fat jetting
-Very good (different) dealer support/service
-Great gearing
-Very nice, grippy seat cover but it still delaminated. KTM warranty replaced
it.
-Jetting kit did not have the needle I needed
-Expensive sparkplugs
-Expensive OEM piston kit
Overall, this bike is more reliable and better suspended than my 98 was. The
reduction in vibration is very noticeable to me and the friendlier powerband
lets me race harder.
jeb - John Brunsgaard
remove nospam to email
OffRoader
the A-Loop kit and it turns the XR into something totally different. Plus
re-springing and re-valving both ends makes the suspension awesome for the
woods and high speed 2-track.
--
OffRoader
'96 XR400R
'90 GNPRMX250YT
''87 YZ250 (It needs a shock! Help!!!)
Jay C wrote in message ...
>three...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8448je$sf7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>magazine. I would like to take a poll of all the RMDers and find out
>>what you feel is the good and bad to your bike. What bike do you prefer
>>and why?
>
>
Jon Sosa
together and start roosting.
js
J Payer <Pay...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:19586-38...@storefull-121.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
OffRoader
>Written communication leaves a lot to be desired,
>that's for sure.
LOL! Don't it, though! Are you going to make it to New Orleans SX this
year, maybe we could hook up? <evil grin>
J Payer
> LOL! Don't it, though! Are you going to make it to
> New Orleans SX this year, maybe we could hook
> up? <evil grin>
LOL!
You ever seen that movie with John Candy and Steve Martin called
"Planes, Trains, and Automobiles"? Well, if you have, you know the
scene where they are headed the wrong way on the e-way and go between
the two trucks? You know how Steve Martin looks over and John Candy is
the devil and laughing? I'll let you guess who would be who on that
road trip.
For some reason that scene just popped in my head. <VBG>
Hell, I'm not even going to the two SX's happening here in Michigan, so
I seriously doubt I'll be coming to New Orleans SX.
Maybe next year. ;-)
Michael Hetrick
>It seems to me that DirtRider and DirtBike magazine doesn't quite know
>who thier reads are. They do the shoot outs on the bikes with a Pro in
>mind, when in fact that more novice and intermediate riders read thier
>what you feel is the good and bad to your bike. What bike do you prefer
>and why?
I have to agree with you. I read this years 250 shoot out in Dirt Bike and was
totally disappointed. The Honda was winning, so they changed springs on the
Yamaha and TADA!! The Yamaha wins.
That is bad enough, but what did they say the reason the KX didn't win? Well,
one of the two issues was bad spring rates. Let see, we change the springs on
the Yamaha but we DONT on the Kawie....and why? Your guess is as good as mine.
I had a '00 KX-250 and it was the best bike I ever owned for racing or fast
riding. Balanced suspension after it was sprung for my weight, and great
motor.
It was not very good for me at slower speeds/technical stuff. But man, could I
fly over the whoops. Dirt Bike says it is a "great big truck of a bike" but
they are full of shit.
Had I not decided to switch completely over to four strokes, I would have kept
the KX.
I presently have a XR-600 and the damn thing is soooooo much fun to ride
around on. Untill you want to go real fast.....and I DONT want to hear about
the fluke of nature (Scott Summers) and how he does so well on the 600. Just
coz one dude can ride it fast doesn't make it the race bike of choice.
But for wandering around out in the desert (which covers about half of our
state) it is a great bike.
I have a YZ-426 that is supposed to show up in a couple of months, I'll let
you know if I made 'the big mistake' or not.
OldFart
'00 YZ 426 (on order)
'95 XR-600 (Damn this bike is FUN!)
International Old Timers MX (Idaho Chapter)
Over 40 Amateur #44
Eric Myers
> OldFart
> '00 YZ 426 (on order)
> '95 XR-600 (Damn this bike is FUN!)
> International Old Timers MX (Idaho Chapter)
> Over 40 Amateur #44
Hey OF I thought you were riding a KTM 380 earlier this year?
Eric
David Jones
I keep telling you guys that Mike changes bikes like we change
underwear..........well, maybe a *little* more often than we change.
>Eric
David - 99 KTM 200EXC
Email: djo...@cyberhighway.net
Home of the "The Very Unofficial RMD Page"
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~djones/
bullwinkle
>Hell, I'm not even going to the two SX's happening here in Michigan, so
>I seriously doubt I'll be coming to New Orleans SX.
>Maybe next year. ;-)
Damn boy. You aren't doing much this year are you. Getting lazy? <g>
J Payer
> Damn boy. You aren't doing much this year are you.
> Getting lazy? <g>
Not going to the SX's is a choice not made by me, but by the few
a$$holes who always show up just to spill beer on me, fight, and throw
stuff like giant spitwads and 1/2 full nacho trays.
It's a shame just a few jerks have to ruin it for everyone.
Kim and I had a great time at Red Bud this past year, and have decided
to go to 2 nationals instead of one SX and one national.
Eric Myers
> I keep telling you guys that Mike changes bikes like we change
> underwear.........
HAH! I'm beginning to notice
Eric -99 DR350 (With Smashed Headlight)
Michael Hetrick
Just trying to find 'THE BIKE'. So far I am only out about $200 through all
the bikes.
I have come to the realization that I cannot do what I want with one bike. I
think that the XR/YZ combo might work.
The XR is dual sported and has a license plate. This allows me to explore some
area's of Idaho that I have been interested in which were off limits without a
plate. Well, I COULD explore them, but I would be running the risk of a
ticket.
For example, those of you who attended the SpudFest remember the main road
that we used to go to and from the trails. Well, my buddy got a nice ticket
this last fall for riding on it without a licensed bike.
I read in some cycle magazine that ya need 5 bikes. I think that number is
kinda small if you are including STREET bikes.
Michael Hetrick
>I keep telling you guys that Mike changes bikes like we change
>underwear..........well, maybe a *little* more often than we change.
There ya go bringing up my *ahem* accident at Blacks Creek again! =)
bullwinkle
>Kim and I had a great time at Red Bud this past year, and have decided
>to go to 2 nationals instead of one SX and one national.
In that case you are a very lucky man for two reasons:
1) You have Kim <g>
2) She makes the right decisions for you <vbg>
If I had my choice I would go to a National over an SX but I am closer for
the Atlanta SX and Daytona (my wife really loves the Daytona SX) so we go to
them. We may go to Budd's Creek this year and stay with my aunt.
BTW, I am saving my frequent flyer miles and my wife and I are planning on
going to the SX season finally in Las Vegas.
So far, I have not had any problems with drunks. Then again I grew up with
and Alcoholic step father and before that my mother dated a lot of heavy
drinkers. I handle social drunks better than some. They still get on my
nerves but not like my step father could.
trl...@netzero.net
: I read in some cycle magazine that ya need 5 bikes. I think that number is
: kinda small if you are including STREET bikes.
Yeah, but what you didn't notice in the article was the fact that
you have to bring all 5 bikes with you everytime you go riding.
--
Scott Aldrich
'98 Suzuki DR350SE
'85 Honda CR125R
'74 Yamaha DT125A
David Jones
Hetrick) wrote:
>In article <386b7bbe...@news.cyberhighway.net>, djo...@cyberhighway.nospam.net (David Jones) wrote:
>
>>I keep telling you guys that Mike changes bikes like we change
>>underwear..........well, maybe a *little* more often than we change.
>
>There ya go bringing up my *ahem* accident at Blacks Creek again! =)
Not me! However, Mike, you do give a new (literal) meaning to the
term: "That crash knocked the crap outta me...." Classic!
>OldFart
David Jones
Hetrick) wrote:
> emy...@nojunkmail.mc.net wrote:
>>David Jones wrote:
>>> I keep telling you guys that Mike changes bikes like we change
>>> underwear.........
>>HAH! I'm beginning to notice
>>Eric
>Just trying to find 'THE BIKE'. So far I am only out about $200 through all
>the bikes.
>I have come to the realization that I cannot do what I want with one bike. I
>think that the XR/YZ combo might work.
Oh jeez Mike, now I have to find room in my pack for a block and
tackle to get that XR back up on the trail? A couple of my riding
partners have the big pigs, but they are both 6'4" "musculated"
bruisers. When *they* need help, I usually just act as a pivot/anchor
point while they do the lifting. When I'd pull on the 600 it's like
tugging on a chunk of embedded granite.... They pick up my 200 as
easily as they'd pick their nose.
> Well, I COULD explore them, but I would be running the risk of a
>ticket.
>For example, those of you who attended the SpudFest remember the main road
>that we used to go to and from the trails. Well, my buddy got a nice ticket
>this last fall for riding on it without a licensed bike.
Yeah, there is a deputy sheriff (Robin) up there now with a hard on
for busting dirt bikers. This fall, four of us nearly got popped by
him when we lost the trail and attempted to ride the two track down
into Featherville to catch the Crosscut trail back over to the Lava
Mtn trailhead. If he hadn't been on his way to a call near the summit
it might have been a *very* expensive day. As it was, it *only* cost
us $25 each to get a local hick to ferry us back to the truck. We hit
the local bar seeking help, they laughed at us until we mentioned
$100.........within a half hour a guy showed up with a 14' flatbed
trailer and some tiedowns
This sheriff is a real dork, I've been putting around on these roads
since the mid seventies and not once have I ever been hassled. Up
around Lowman we even ride highway 21 for a few miles between Warm
Springs and Blue Jay trails w/o any problem.
That's the last time I follow/trust DeLloy (I-know-the-trails) Forbes
anywhere!
On the brighter side, the ID state legislature is supposedly working
on a bill that will allow us to legally operate on the USFS road
system (between trails) without being "street" legal. We may be
required to carry liability insurance.
>I read in some cycle magazine that ya need 5 bikes. I think that number is
>kinda small if you are including STREET bikes.
I think I could live with four. A 2S trail bike, a 4S trail bike, 4S
dual sport and a street bike.
Mark Nelson
>Just trying to find 'THE BIKE'. So far I am only out about $200 through all
>the bikes.
How do you do that Mike? I know that you can't buy any extras, that's a given.
Are you getting them to give you what you paid (or nearly) on your trades? Are
you dealing with a multi-line dealer that has most brands? What gives. I wanna
be like Mike!
Mark
'99 YZ BIG
'96 yz small
#567 OCCRA
Michael Hetrick
>Oh jeez Mike, now I have to find room in my pack for a block and
>tackle to get that XR back up on the trail?
First of all, I'm on to you, Mr. Jones or shall I say.........Mr. DeSade!
Second, I think it is pretty neat that I finally found a bike that weighs more
than me.
>I think I could live with four. A 2S trail bike, a 4S trail bike, 4S
>dual sport and a street bike.
Whot?! No chopper?
Baker
I own a KDX 220. I like just about everything about it except the
suspension in the front is weak. Otherwise, it's a good bike.
Kawboy~Baker
Dudley Cornman
> 1997 KTM 300EXC
>
> Good:
>
> Broad, useable power (with Tassinari reed cage)..
> Quality components; still feels "tight" after 3 years..
> Very comfy for normal sized people, not built for midgets like most Jap
> bikes. I can stand all day on this bike. This is the main reason I'll keep
> this bike.
> Great seat (once you get used to it).
> Suspension works great for normal speeds in deep woods (rocks and roots).
> Large tank capacity without getting in the way.
>
> Bad:
>
> Transmission ratios too close, or needs a sixth gear.
> No Zerk fittings on the suspension linkage.
In my opinion that is a plus. The no-zerk setups tend to have real
seals that keep grease in and water/crud out. The zerk setups often
don't have seals and don't do a god job of keeping grease in/waster out.
My 1997 XR400 has a no-zerk suspension. I recently serviced it for the
first time and every thing was fine. Just cleaned up the bearings,
repacked them and re-installed.
dsc - acssysdsc
> Forks are 50mm 'Zokes: they act wacko once you step up the pace, and it
> costs $650 to fix them..
The only one I rode felt just a bit "twitchy" to me compared to my XR.
Is that what you mean by whacko?
dsc - acssysdsc
Wayne Thomas
I own a '95 KDX 125 which was alot more bike than I expected. A little more
seat foam would have been nice for a heavier person though.
Baker <Kaw...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:26463-38...@storefull-106.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
OffRoader
Not going to the SX's is a choice not made by me, but by the few
a$$holes who always show up just to spill beer on me, fight, and throw
stuff like giant spitwads and 1/2 full nacho trays.
OUCH!
--
OffRoader
'96 XR400R
'90 GNPRMX250YT
''87 YZ250 (It needs a shock! Help!!!)
124.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Ivan Liechty wrote:
> Damn boy. You aren't doing much this year are you.
> Getting lazy? <g>
It's a shame just a few jerks have to ruin it for everyone.
Kim and I had a great time at Red Bud this past year, and have decided
to go to 2 nationals instead of one SX and one national.
J&K