SuperHunky .com Interview - Project Two 50

[KXwestYZ]

amazing interview

[KXwestYZ]

This is a great interview, was really heartened by it. To be honest, although I was all for the 250 project, I really didn't see it as having much of a chance in competing against the factory 450 thumpers due to the huge power disparity. Too much of one, for the nimbleness and better handling of the lighter 250 to overcome, especially on tracks deliberately designed to favor those 4stroke piles of fecal material.

These days, usually, when one sees engine mods or hop ups being done on 2stroke motors in magazines, it's more than likely to be to smooth out and broaden the powerband. Actual increases in power are usually minute, and sometimes they even lose a bit in max hp. I guess due to that, I had it in mind that such would be the approach of Project 250, and against the big factory thumpers, that's a recipe for defeat. You need the power to match the thumpers at least, in acceleration, and a rider who can handle it. The KTM 150SX, for instance, can actually out accelerate the 250 thumpers, even if only by a hair. I do remember reading that one of RC's factory 250s a few years back was producing about 56 hp, but the trend seemed to be moving away from that. KTM's SX 250 is detuned somewhat from the 2003 (I believe) model which scared the sissy-boy testers (boo hoo). Sheesh! They still have the most powerful stock 250, but it used to be even hotter. Anyhow, I let out a whoop when I saw the approach Project 250 is taking with their bike and that they are not pulling any punches in the power department. They're not satisfied with the pantywaist approach of merely a "broader, smoother" powerband. BRAVO!!!! Not against a broad and smooth powerband in a 2stroke, but if it's at the expense of power, forget it. Better to have the power, and a rider who knows how to put it to use. Seems Project 250 indeed has that in spades. Great job, guys!

I agree with you 100% im sick of people trying to make 2 strokes into a 'broader more smooth' powerband just to make them more like the 4 stroke - the whole fun of 2 strokes is the intense powerband delivery for me

[JETZcorp]

Everyone tries to make the two-stroke more broad and the four-strokes more peaky.  You know what that means?

Everyone wants their motor to act like a Maico!  Oh yeah, I went there.

[KXwestYZ]

Everyone tries to make the two-stroke more broad and the four-strokes more peaky.  You know what that means?

Everyone wants their motor to act like a Maico!  Oh yeah, I went there.

me and turquine must be odd ones out then  

[SachsGS]

If you look at the power to weight ratios of a 450 4s and a 250 2s you'll find that they are similar. The difference is tractability, the 450 4s is "finding traction", and that is why it is winning. Souping up a 250 2s even more isn't going to do any good if it all goes up in wheelspin. The objective is to win and 250 2s's need technology that will make them more tractable and able to find traction. Proof of this is that 35hp 4s are posting the fastest laptimes on some tracks.

[KXwestYZ]

If you look at the power to weight ratios of a 450 4s and a 250 2s you'll find that they are similar. The difference is tractability, the 450 4s is "finding traction", and that is why it is winning. Souping up a 250 2s even more isn't going to do any good if it all goes up in wheelspin. The objective is to win and 250 2s's need technology that will make them more tractable and able to find traction. Proof of this is that 35hp 4s are posting the fastest laptimes on some tracks.

I understand what your saying - if your having to run a 2 stroke 250 against a 450 4 stroke in the USA then you may have to tune it differently to stand a chance, but here in the UK we have lots of 2 stroke only series and also the red bull pro national series where its equal displacement so 250 2 strokes are running against 250 4 strokes and we dont need to 'smooth out the power' in order to be competitive - we can enjoy the thrills of a peaky 2 stroke and nail the 4 strokes no matter what and not have to compromise the fun factor..    in the open class we can run 500cc 2 strokes against the 450 4 bangers to

[riffraff]

So in the UK it's how it used to be here  Does Red Bell have a series like that here in the US?

[maicoman009]

Your right JETZcorp!It does seem like everybody is looking for that old school MAICO type 2-stroke power!Thats right I SAID IT! OLD SCHOOL MAICO POWER RULES!!!

[Turquine]

2003 Dallas Supercross - Part 1 of 3

2003 Dallas Supercross - Part 2 of 3

2003 Dallas Supercross - Part 3 of 3

[Turquine]

Oops, sorry, in that last post, seems my links didn't come out. I will try again here. --->

2003 Dallas Supercross - Part 1 of 3

2003 Dallas Supercross - Part 2 of 3

2003 Dallas Supercross - Part 3 of 3

[JETZcorp]

The IT had a 17 inch rim though and a tire with a much better footprint.

I'm a fan of the 17-inch rims.  It was one of the things Husky insisted on putting on all their bikes, and the magazines couldn't seem to understand why.  It was something different, so they always said it needed to be changed, though I never read one explaining their reason for wanting the 17 gone.  The logic behind it was that you could have the smaller rim, but the tire diameter would be the same, giving you a ton of side-wall that would flatten a bit and give you a massive area for grip, as well as absorbing some shocks to help the suspension.  Huskies were known for their tremendous grip and world-beating suspension.

Your story about the tires is a really interesting one.  I knew the tires made a pretty big difference, but I didn't realize it would be so night-and-day on a bike that makes big-time power like a 500 or one of those super-tuned 250s.  That reminds me, it's interesting to note that a 250 two-stroke that's running 50hp is making TWICE the power-per-liter of the supercharged Corvette ZR-1, and about half-again the power-per-liter of a Hayabusa, by my calculations.

[Turquine]

You got it, JETZ. The knob pattern on the IT's 17 inch IRC tire wasn't that spectacular, but like you said, there was more tire rubber surface on the ground than on similar 18 inch rims of the time. Seems MX bikes all have 19 inch rear wheels now. I don't care much for that. Want better traction, start with a better tire rather than cutting back on hp when you're already forced to give up so much displacement to begin with.

Looks like I goofed. When I posted my note and added the three links, I just hit post without previewing. I then went back and checked immediately to see how it came out and the links were not there. So I posted them again only to find that they had been there in the previous post after all. I guess something is wrong with my PC because it didn't show when I went back and checked right after posting the first one. Should have used the preview I guess.

[SachsGS]

The higher unsprung weight of a 17" tire has a considerable effect on accelleration and suspension action.

[Turquine]

[JETZcorp]

A similar story is the one of the 430 Husky and YZ426F (I've told this one before.)  Long story short, the Yamaha couldn't touch the '81 open-classer on the straights, and then later in the day the '86 Maico 500 added corners to the list of things the YZF was sup-par at.  This was on unmaintained dirt roads which, while not a motocross track, certainly don't react kindly to light-switch power delivery.  The YZF rider came back from that ride with ruined Excel rims, a shattered pride, and a newfound belief in Sasquatch.  Last I heard, the 426 had its transmission looking more like fruit loops than anything else.