Two Stroke Motocross
Two Stroke Motocross Forum => General Two Stroke Talk => Topic started by: wintrader on May 29, 2010, 06:36:09 AM
-
I do not get it, in the old days 250 2 strokes were always faster then the 500 2 strokes. So why do we think that it is not fair to race a 250 2 stroke against 450 4 strokes. Why should all of a sudden a 450 2 stroke be faster then a 450 4 stroke?
-
What's a 450 2t?I think you have a typo or two in there :)
-
Over the decades the tracks have changed.The Supercross influence relegated 500s to the MX museum.The key thing with the 4S's is traction and I think this is why in certain situations 250 4S's are turning the fastest lap times. All the power in the world will not do you any good if you can't put it to the ground.
I suspect when Mitch Payton ported that WR300 cylinder that is what he was looking for.
-
I know tracks changed over time but in the old days with the old tracks 500 also were not able to lap faster then 250 2 strokes. In heavy loomy sandtracks 250 4 strokes normally much faster then 450's.
-
Back when those beastly 500cc 2-strokes were racing they did have more power than the 250 2-strokes of that time but the 250's were alot lighter & easier to ride therefore they turned quicker lap times. ;)
-
Not lighter!!! I rode a maico 250 and that is abouty the same bike as a maico 440 at that time just different engine. Maybe one or kg lighter not more. It is just the bulky power what is in the way. The open class bike were not lighter!!! Also drove a 1982 maico and that was a handable 500 and that was so good about that bike. it certainly was not the strongest openclass bike. The whole packages was just good. M ost of the openclass bikes were just to difficult to ride and wheelied to much.
-
If youve ever raced a CR 500 or any other brand of big bore 2stroke you will understand why its easier to go faster on a 250 2t.
What a handful!!
-
If youve ever raced a CR 500 or any other brand of big bore 2stroke you will understand why its easier to go faster on a 250 2t.
What a handful!!
Absolutely right!!!!
-
I remember back in the day 125's turning faster lap times than 250's. Slightly lighter bike, lighter rider, different lines due to different power and handling characteristics can all add up to faster lap times... but there's still something about a big bore 2 stroke, bring back the open class!
-
I remember back in the day 125's turning faster lap times than 250's. Slightly lighter bike, lighter rider, different lines due to different power and handling characteristics can all add up to faster lap times... but there's still something about a big bore 2 stroke, bring back the open class!
Thats what i say riffraff, if they started making them again it might stop people trying to sell there 2000 model CR 500's for $8000!!(thats Aus dollars by the way) its gettin out of hand i tell ya............
-
i could be wrong about this, but wasnt it last year ama passed a rule stating that the 450 class was now called a open class?? if it is then there is no reason why you cant ride one in there.
-
According to Section 1.4 para.B they have 2 classes, 250 and open :D
-
Not lighter!!! I rode a maico 250 and that is abouty the same bike as a maico 440 at that time just different engine. Maybe one or kg lighter not more. It is just the bulky power what is in the way. The open class bike were not lighter!!! Also drove a 1982 maico and that was a handable 500 and that was so good about that bike. it certainly was not the strongest openclass bike. The whole packages was just good. M ost of the openclass bikes were just to difficult to ride and wheelied to much.
Yes lighter.Depending on year,make ,model etc, a 125 is about 20lbs lighter than a 250 which is about 20 lbs lighter than a 500-more or less anyway.Often a larger displacement has the chassis beefed up somewhat.Disregarding that,a bigger engine takes more metal-and that weighs more-oddly enough. :)
-
http://twostrokemotocross.com/2008/10/maico-releases-2009-motocross-line/ (http://twostrokemotocross.com/2008/10/maico-releases-2009-motocross-line/)
Not so much weight difference!
-
Don't believe everything you read at the brochure.Also,when KTM brought out their first 250f EXC it was virtually the same weight as the 400-because it was a sleeved down 400-later models were lighter.I stand by my figures-they're accurate.
-
Actually, an '80s Honda XR 80 can easily beat any 500 2stroke, 450 4stroke, or 250 2 or 4stroke. I guarantee it! Of course, the track will be in my back yard. It's really pretty simple, it's the track. Take your 250 2 or 4stroke out on a fast desert loop with a CR or KX 500, Win, and you will eat roost. Only for a little while though, because soon the big 500s will have disappeared into the horizon. As to tracks, sure, on today's wimpy tracks where one rarely gets out of third gear on a big bore, and ridiculous whoops and short straights, a big 500 2stroke is at a bit of a disadvantage. As I've said before, give the bigger bikes just a bit of room to actually hook up and use that power, and they will beat the 250s. I'm talking about lots of 5th gear straights, smoother whoops, and at least one uphill that a 125 would be unable to climb if the rider's life depended on it. Even now, tracks are designed to favor thumpers over 2strokes, everyone knows this. Tracks for an open class machine should be designed for that type of bike. A CR 500 will never beat a CR 250 or CR 250f around a supercross track or a 250 outdoor MX track. They are too tight to take advantage of the extra power. Give it a real open class designed track and it will run off and leave any 250. Especially if it has a couple of really high, steep sandy uphills that would bog a 125. Your thinking is limited to what you currently see being done. Just because nobody's doing it, doesn't mean it could not, or should not be done.
-
The older model Maico engines he's talking about were not more than a couple pounds different from each other, used the same frame, wheels, suspension. Most tracks started getting slower after the 60's, so an Open bikes lap times were not as fast as the 250's. Jim Ellis had the Southwick track record with a 125 for quite a while, but at the time the track was set up with shorter straights and suited smaller bikes better.
Paul
-
I like that 20lb rule for going between classes. It's the kind of rule that you just KNOW applies everywhere. But of course, when Maico say otherwise, they've got to be lying, because we all know that Maico lies about everything.
Anyway, at the risk of turning this into a Maico thread, I think I'll just expand on that "same bike, different engine" thing someone said before. It's really interesting to see just how much is shared between the different classes of Maicos. If you look at a 250, 400, and 490, there are only very few things that are different. First, the 400 and 490 are the same bike. The only thing different is the bore - even the stroke and transmission ratios are identical. The 250 varies a bit more, they had reed valves starting in '81, as well as (obviously) a different bore and stroke, different pipe, and different cooling fin design, and different ratios. The rest was identical though, even the crankcase was the same casting, with a piece inserted to make it smaller. Even the legendary 760 was built on the same cases, and using the same clutch as the 250. This is why the weights of these bikes were so similar, because the only place for weight savings was in the barrel, crank, and piston. I'm not 100% on this, but I would venture a guess that the new ones do this as well.
Anyway, here's something totally different, regarding the first post. I gathered that part of the point of this thread was to discovery why, if small displacement can be just as fast as, or faster than large displacements, why we are agitating for parity. For me, my answer is that I don't care which one is faster, I just want it fair. Even if it turned out that equal-displacement would put the two-stroke at a bigger disadvantage than it's at now, I would argue that they should be equal. Of course, I think we all know that's not true in aggregate (although on some tracks it may well be). May the best engine win. We learned in the 1960s to be colorblind, now it's time the AMA rulemakers learn to be stroke-blind.
-
On motocross tracks, there has nearly always been little difference in lap times, by same level riders, on various capacity motorcycles. For the most part, motocross tracks don't have much speed to them, in conventional terms. If you put a speedo on an MX bike, plus a timer for how long a 'high' speed was recorded, the average person would be distinctly unimpressed. We as riders know that 45/50mph through a rough straight can be utterly ballistic and pant staining - to the uninitiated , it's slow. I recall reading that , on the Honda test track, both RJ and Bailey recorded wide open throttle usage for only about 3/5 seconds per lap, and spent most of the time below 1/2 throttle on a full lap on 500s.
I don't know the exact Maximum Average speed for a lap of an approved track (mind you it's not rigidly followed from what I gather) that is specified by the FIM, but it is surprisingly low, I think around the 60 / 80 KPH. So we are not doing a sport that is speed / power dominated like so many motorsports.
Equivalency is about having an equal playing field, in each class. The open class, with bikes of either stroke, will have engines that can put out more usable power than even the best can make use of, in a variety of capacities. The open class enables designers/engineers and Riders to try different approaches.
Smaller capacity bikes have always gone fast int terms of lap times. And there are those talented riders ( well, the average rider to - I could always get consistently faster lap times on my 125s/ small capacity 4t/2t hybrids, than I could get on my open class bikes that I raced at the same time - but I had more fun and better results on the open class bikes), whose style / preferences in a bike enable them to go faster on a smaller capacity bike. Especially when on a track with bikes of , generally, equal performance levels. And the very highly talented riders, who are really suited to the smaller capacity bike, can do well against bigger bikes whilst on the same track, at the same time. But they are in the minority. The bigger bikes use/can use different lines, that interfere with the lines (generally about keeping momentum) of the smaller bikes, cutting momentum, and thus beating them. Examples could go on and on.
To me, the premier , Open class has always been about riding the most demanding and difficult to master bikes, simple as that. That is why it was regarded with such respect, for so long.
450s I've regarded as open classers all along - 250 2ts get eaten by them because of the difference in grunt that the 450s have Only because of the capacity handicap. 4 strokes Do Not have more torque than a 2t of equal capacity, with the same relative level of tuning, it's one of the most BS statements that I continually hear / read with regards to 4ts - They Only have the advantage in torque Because of their extra capacity - even 2t advocates seem not to understand this most basic point at times.
I ride a CRE500 - because it's rock axe reliable, Easy to ride, simple and I'm off the 'get the latest model treadmill', for the time being. And it costs little to run. I don't find it scary / intimidating 99.9% of the time, and I certainly can scare myself just as much when I occasionally get on a 450 4t open classer - both examples of MCs that have more power than I , or any of you, I would suspect, could use in my sort of terrain.
We need a return to 3 classes, and equal capacity rules between 2 an 4 strokes. And a return to the premier class being the Open class.
PS, when I checked the AMA pro rules, I saw the maximum capacity written as 450cc - I saw no reference to it being now an open class, as I think someone has stated above.
-
500s are faster than 250s i went to a 2t round at Pontriless 250s up against 500s the 500s left them for dead on the hills .The 500s won by a long way ,get the right track and nothing will live with a big 5 .
-
I like that 20lb rule for going between classes. It's the kind of rule that you just KNOW applies everywhere. But of course, when Maico say otherwise, they've got to be lying, because we all know that Maico lies about everything.
Lol,you crack me up Jetz :D.As hard as this is for you to believe,there are more motorcycles out there than Maico's.
The 20lb differential isn't a rule,(and I never said it was-i believe the term was "more or less")it's just approximately accurate.The fact that this figure may not apply to Maico's old or new isn't going to stop the world from spinning and really has no bearing on anything at all.
I'll try again-using 125's and 250's as examples.250's typically have a slightly larger heavier chassis.The engines are heavier as are many of the bits and pieces.Trans,clutch,rear rim/tire,kickstarter,ex pipe/muffler etc,etc.All this adds up to a heavier bike.
As for the Maico's,like the KTM example I cited previously,it's not uncommon for a small manufacturer to use a shared chassis and a couple of engine castings for their entire line.It's just smart business from an economical point of view.
On the upside,if you buy a small bore from a company like this,you tend to end up with a durable,overbuilt machine that will last a good long time.The downside,of course,is that you also end up with a porker as compared to most of the competition.For me,I'd pay a weight penalty to get more durability-within reason of course.
My second KTM was built a fair bit lighter than my first-not enough to notice but things like aluminum spoke nipples and thinner,weaker bits and pieces bothered me-though I never had any issues.
The modern day 250f's are very close in weight to a 250 2t though the engines are still heavier.The chassis on these have been lightened so much in recent years I think they'll soon be bordering or fragility.The 2t chassis haven't changed much and tend to be heavier.
As for the claimed Maico weights,if their claimed figures are like every other manufacturer on the planet and tend to be on the optimistic side,the dry weight(no fluids at all)of the 250 puts it well on the heavy side for a 250 mx-no doubt due to the shared parts with the bigger bores.There's no magic Maico superiority at work here-just common sense and a small company trying to build a full line of bikes relatively economically.I think if they have the quality down(time will tell)they're a bike I'd like to own.If I do however,I won't rave about them being the best thing ever-and I'm not going to tell you I've got one either :P ;)
-
When I first got my Maico 380 a friend of mine quickly weighed it on the same scale he used for his Husky WR250 and Gasser 250 and,I forget the exact figures but, he found the Maico to be lighter then both of the other bikes.
-
Your Maico was what,about 225 lbs or so w/o fuel?That's a reasonable weight.Gasgas and Husky of those years were a little overweight-around 230+ or so I believe.
-
I will say, when I converted the weight for the new 250 MMX from kilograms into pounds, I was a little disappointed at how much heavier it was than when we put my dad's '77 250 on the scales. That damn thing was, like, 205lbs with most (like, 90%) of the fluids drained.
-
Maico was a small factory, not only are half the parts the same between the different CC's, but they are also the same between series of years, some parts even back to the early 70s (the wrist pin & bearing is the same from 1970 to 2003 at least reguardless of CC).
For example, the frame is usually the same. In 1981, for example, the cases are the same. The 250 and 490 engine cases are EXACTLY the same. So how do they fit a smaller crank? There are inserts in the crank housing to make the volume smaller.
(http://www.maicowerk.com//Images/Maico/Manuals/1981Spares/Spares_1981_2.jpg)
Check it out from the diagram. Same shifting forks, etc (of course need to look up the parts numbers to see that detail). Some of the gears may even be the same. Anyhow, the diagram clearly shows crank inserts if you look at the crank housing area, those are for the 250. The case part #'s are the same. I juse put shifting forks from a 1986 Mstar 250 for a 500 transmission. They are the same.
So Nanny nanny boo boo to the weight difference for Maico!
-
I reckon the net weight of the bike is irrespective with modern bikes all around the same dry weight, 2t or 4. the 4's and big bore 2t's or always gonna have bigger engine internals and larger rotating mass, this makes them want to stand up when you gas them and makes them feel heavier.
Try holding a little 10inch wheel by the axles when spinning, then try and turn it from horizontal to vertical. it's pretty easy but you can feel the resistance, then try it with a BMX bike wheel and you'll notice a big difference and much more resistance. That's why 4's feel heavy, that and the lazy power delivery and flat powerband.
-
So Nanny nanny boo boo
Lol,you've got kids too eh opfermanmotors? :D
-
I do not get it, in the old days 250 2 strokes were always faster then the 500 2 strokes. So why do we think that it is not fair to race a 250 2 stroke against 450 4 strokes. Why should all of a sudden a 450 2 stroke be faster then a 450 4 stroke?
500 cc off road bikes are FASTER,but depend on what track the 250,s are QUICKER.
Again,depend on what kind of track,the 125 cc bikes can be QUICKER then 250-500.
-
Helmut, didn't Sachs make some proto-type big bore two strokes in the 1970's?
-
Speaking about off road SACHS,the largest engine Sachs developed was the over bored 250 into 255 cc ( 1976 ) just to bring it to the US market.They called it a 350 but it was only 255cc.
(http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/7253/speedyscollection004.jpg) (http://img25.imageshack.us/i/speedyscollection004.jpg/)
By producing the 300 cc WANKEL engine,it was debatet what it realy was,because it fired 3 times in one revolution so some people claimed it was therefore a 900 cc.
(http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9199/wankel300ccm.jpg) (http://img46.imageshack.us/i/wankel300ccm.jpg/)
-
Displacement with Wankels is a little sticky, because no one can seem to agree on how to measure it. Do you just measure the combustion chamber? Or do you multiply that for the three sides of the rotor? Because it's not a piston-in-cylinder setup, it'll always be awkward trying to put a Wankel into racing against more traditional engines. That's a shame, I think, because they're damn cool engines.
-
The year when NORTON raced the WANKEL in roadracing,they won everything until the rest of the World protestet.
:o :(
-
I have always liked the idea of a rotary in a dirt bike.
I was living in the UK when Ron Haslam was racing the Norton and that thing sounded awsome.
You are right though about what displacement they really are. No one can make up their minds.
I remember when Mazda won Le Man's with their rotary , The car was quickly outlawed.
Couldn't have the Japanese beating the European's could we ? ;)
The joy of politics in sport !
-
The Europeans should've just responded with a two-stroke and wiped Mazda clean. :P
-
"Unfortunately the Nortons withered away after their last race in 1994, thanks to the corporate intrigue that eventually downed the parent company."
Sounds sorta like what happened to a certain other European motorcycle company in the 80's :-X
-
Lol,you've got kids too eh opfermanmotors?
Yes and this is what she has to say:
1983 Maico 490 Sand Spider Rebuild Part 6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1Uxb-L2yy0#ws)
-
500 2T's should have tracks built specifically for them, to allow them to showcase their prodigious hp/torque output. Sidecarcross has the right idea ;-)
-
Lol,you've got kids too eh opfermanmotors?
Yes and this is what she has to say:
1983 Maico 490 Sand Spider Rebuild Part 6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1Uxb-L2yy0#ws)
Good looking girl. Really pretty.
-
Coooollllll,but you should have replaced the guy with your daughter for the "happy dance" near the end. :D
-
Lol,you've got kids too eh opfermanmotors?
Yes and this is what she has to say:
1983 Maico 490 Sand Spider Rebuild Part 6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1Uxb-L2yy0#ws)
Good looking girl. Really pretty.
Indeed she is.Whenever anyone said that about my daughter my usual response is "thanks,she takes after her father-whoever that is..." :D
-
In my opinion it really is about rider. I have ridden a 83 CR480 for almost 17 years, and on the track, can consistantly turn quicker times than our 85 CR250. Now, with the super cross type tracks nowadays, the suspension on these older bikes show their age. Some folks can just rip on those 4-strokes, likely they have been riding that type bike for some time...take alot more to go fast with a 2-smoker.
-
Actually, I've always liked the line from an older not to be named late 80s / early 90s movie.
"Is this your son?"
"Yeah, but they don't know who the real mother is yet."
-
Just wait untill those kids turn into teenagers!
Brings to mind a joke I once heard: "What is the key difference between a teenager and a terrorist?
"You can negotiate with a terrorist!"
Trust me, I learned that one the hard way.
-
HEY! I resemble that remark!
-
Just wait untill those kids turn into teenagers!
Brings to mind a joke I once heard: "What is the key difference between a teenager and a terrorist?
"You can negotiate with a terrorist!"
Trust me, I learned that one the hard way.
While I know it's that way for most,I also know that mine is going to be different :D
-
I know alot of guys on here has to remember the 1986 Motocross Des Nations team of David Bailey, Rick "Bad Boy" Johnson and Johnny "O,Show" Omara. How Johnny Omara on a 125 won against those 500`s on that open track over in Italy was amazing and RJ on is 250.
-
Every U.S. team during the whole 80's decade kicked ass, those where the days ;D
-
I remember back in the day... I'm going to show my age here.... Marty Smith (at the time 125cc champ) would compete in the open class on a 125.... He did pretty well. and as I remember reading about it the comments were he had to keep it wide open to keep up with the big bores, and of course the engine blew once or twice...
-
I remember back in the day... I'm going to show my age here.... Marty Smith (at the time 125cc champ) would compete in the open class on a 125.... He did pretty well. and as I remember reading about it the comments were he had to keep it wide open to keep up with the big bores, and of course the engine blew once or twice...
My old man got 12th in a hare scramble nationals....or maybe it was an enduro. I can't remember and I've heard the story 100 times. Anyway, he got 12th in a field of 140 on a 125 back in the late-late 70's. He said the big bike were trying to power through the deep mud and ended up burying themselves. He would scoot across and found the better lines.
-
Reminds me of the story of Hodaka Ace 90s getting good results in big California desert races against big-bore Huskies and such back in the On Any Sunday days. The little thing had the advantage of being really small, really reliable (designed in Oregon, represent!) and carrying gas in a 500-million-gallon tank. After getting an early last place, the rest of the race was just a matter of weaving through the broken European bikes.
-
the rest of the race was just a matter of weaving through the broken European bikes.
Some things never change eh jetz? :D
-
the rest of the race was just a matter of weaving through the broken European bikes.
Some things never change eh jetz? :D
Stuck your foot in that one didn't you? ;D
-
Clearly, Euro bikes weren't particularly reliable in the really early '70s. Later in the decade they got quite good, but if you bought, say, a 1972 Maico you had better get used to some serious maintenance. Word on the street at the time was that before you even started the motor, you had to put many hours of work into the bike and get it right. The guys who put all that into it were the local kings of the world. The other 98% got tired of it bought Honda, Suzuki and Yamaha. Even when it became possible to buy a European bike that was good to race right out of the create, Japanese-style, people still remembered the bygone days of loose bolt and ridiculous vibration. But hey, even with all the weirdness and quirks, if you had enough balls and LocTite, no one was going to catch one of the Big Three (Maico, Husky, CZ).
-
As a collector of vintage motorcycles I've often wondered why there are ,comparitively,so many old Ossa's,CZ's,Maico's etc. still around and so few Yam YZ360's,Suzuki TM's etc. to be found. Surely the sales of the Japanese bikes exceeded that of the Euro's so where are they? And when I find some decrepit rusty old Bultaco the thing still runs, whereas the Japanese bike has been dead for decades.
Futhermore, without hesitation I'll ride that old DKW 30 miles into the bush ,humming the theme to "On Any Sunday" as I go, whereas the Asian bikes are ,at best, a garage queen.
-
I think the European bikes of the time were the ones owned and maintained by the more "hardcore" crowd. When Papa Bear wanted to get his son a new bike for his 16th birthday, he wasn't about to buy some expensive European bike that would take a bunch of maintenance that neither he for his son would know how to to. Instead, they bought one of those Yamahas or Suzukis, and then, being fairly new to the world of bikes, proceeded to thrash the thing. Of course, this mentality probably only lasted a few years, as eventually the really hard-core guys started going to the Japanese bikes as well once they started getting really competitively fast. But still, I think the European bikes managed to maintain a sort of "hand-crafted, low-production" mystique that collectors and restorers have latched onto. I think this is the effect that has caused the number of Maicos appearing in vintage races, which used to be rather small, to now out-number the Big-Four. I'm just speculating, of course.
-
Yes, that is only speculation. Your post sounds like one of the older magazines that were getting a lot of revenue from one of the 'big four'. Having been around and riding all different bikes back then, I've had first hand experience racing both Euro and Asian. The bikes from Japan were not of high quality until the works bikes were shelved in the US. The Euro bikes held together much better than they were made out to be. The biggest reason the Euro bikes were passed over was that they were more expensive than the bikes from Japan. The exchange rate was very much in favor of the Japanese brands. A Suzuki TM 250 cost approx. $800 while a Maico or Husqvarna was about $1200. With the TM you still had to buy good shocks, flywheel weights to help the motor put power to the ground, fork kits or forks, good tires, decent grips, frame mods, good motor mount bolts that wouldn't snap when you tighten them, handlebars, ect. Most of the items to change came as standard equipment on the Euro bikes.
A freind of mine was an avid racer throughout the 70's and when the Suzuki TM125 came out he had the first one I had ever seen. He made good money and previously rode a Husky 400. He was more of a 125 rider, so the Husky was a handful in the power. He wore the TM out in three months, frame, motor, forks, shocks, wheels were all trashed. His results were not very good, either. He bought 5 of them, one every three months before he came to his senses and bought a Bultaco 250. With the Bul, his results were immediately improved. He only spent money on normal wear items.
I ride a variety of Euro bikes still, and they just keep running, they all have been very reliable and I would take any of them riding anywhere with no worries of a breakdown or worry that I had to work on one of them for two days before I went riding like you were led to believe by the magazines of the day or by the Motocross Action statements about the old bikes.
Paul
-
Well, there we go. I guess I was just trusting the magazines too much, because they did a huge amount of ragging on Euro bikes for build quality. Especially Maicos, which even Super Hunky in his books says took a lot of preparation after opening the crate.
Still, going back to the original post I made that started this, I absolutely don't think they were as reliable as the Hodakas. Those things were legendary for their lasting power, such that they ran one around the entire coast of Australia (or maybe just a big part of it, I'm not sure, but we're definitely talking a couple thousand miles of harsh climate) with no maintenance except gas and spark plugs. It's easy to forget Hodaka today, but they're the ones who invented trail riding in America, and were just about the first ones to make something reliable as an axe. But of course, they only lasted a little over a decade.
In the late 1970s, a combination of events led to the demise of Hodaka. Falling US dollar exchange rates against the Japanese yen, a shift in demand from dirt bikes to larger road bikes, and general economic weakness fatally wounded the company. Hodaka attempted a purchase of Fuji Heavy Industries â??the Japanese company which manufactured most Hodaka enginesâ??but were rebuffed. Around 1980, Hodaka ceased all operations. Its tooling was later sold to the Korean company Daelim.
-
WOw, you're gettin out there now. I've heard from actual riders talking about trail riding in the 40's and 50's, but they never mentioned Hodaka's on the trail, just Triumph, BSA, Royal Enfield, AJS, Villers, ect. From my memories of Hodaka's, their motors were not a strong point.
Again, they were cheap to buy and repair, thus the 'McDonalds' way of thinking for the masses of people trying to get into dirt bikes. I'd much rather have a Zundapp or Sachs, similar trannys to Hodaka, but at least they had powerful, very reliable motors.
I bought a Maico 400 in 1977, uncrated it/serviced it, and a half hour later I was ripping around a track with it. After the break-in, check bolts and torque,nothing fell off, not even loosen in the first two months of racing. I raced the entire year, 35 races, two nights a week useing 3-4 gallons of gas, without any motor servicing needed; parts or repairs. I did inspect the primary chain and piston/ring, but I do that with any race bike. I spent Zero dollars to keep that bike running all season! I'm not counting tires or chain/ sprockets, grips or oil and spare filters.
The Suzuki RM I bought the year before cost me as much in repairs and worn out engine and chassis parts as I initially paid for the bike. Sounds a lot like the way the big 4 are trying to get us with the 4 strokes today.
-
By producing the 300 cc WANKEL engine,it was debatet what it realy was,because it fired 3 times in one revolution so some people claimed it was therefore a 900 cc.
That's actually not true, although many people believe it to be so. A single-rotor Wankel only fires once per eccentric shaft (crankshaft) rotation. The shaft rotates three times for every single rotation of the rotor. That's why a single rotor Wankel is comparable to a single cylinder reciprocating engine.
-
Well hell, a four-stroke only fires 0.5 times per crankshaft rotation, so a 250F should actually be called a 125F by that logic?
-
Well hell, a four-stroke only fires 0.5 times per crankshaft rotation, so a 250F should actually be called a 125F by that logic?
Please tell me what the number of firing events per crank revolution has to do with displacement?
I was merely pointing out the fact that a single rotor Wankel in fact does not fire three times per crank rotation, it fires once. And that's why many experts agree that a single rotor Wankel can be compared to a single cylinder engine, rather than a three cylinder engine. Again, I said NOTHING about displacement.
-
And I quote, "Thus, engines with equal power should be compared: a naturally aspirated 1.3-liter Wankel engine with a naturally aspirated 1.3-liter four-stroke reciprocating piston engine with equal power. But such a four-stroke engine is not possible and needs twice the displacement for the same power as a Wankel engine. " hmmmmm, sounds like the same problem they have comparing a 4 stroke to a 2 stroke ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Too true, Too true :(
-
http://seattle.craigslist.org/skc/mcy/1786278972.html (http://seattle.craigslist.org/skc/mcy/1786278972.html)
This is a really sick bike!
-
http://seattle.craigslist.org/skc/mcy/1786278972.html (http://seattle.craigslist.org/skc/mcy/1786278972.html)
This is a really sick bike!
Thats Beautiful!!