Two Stroke Motocross
Two Stroke Motocross Forum => Vintage Two Strokes => Topic started by: JimmyMoto832 on January 14, 2011, 05:51:37 PM
-
I pulled my 86 500 out of storage, it had been sitting for 5 years. When I put it away I drained the oil, gas and anti-freeze(cuz anti-freeze eats the cases). So I put all the things it needed and headed to the track. I normally ride a 09 YZ 250 that I do well on when I race (40EX).
But I have to say my lap times on the 25 year motorcycle are close to my YZ. I was riding at AV Motoplex which is kinda jumpy. Next time I'll put a clock on me and give another report with photo's.
There's a triple out there thats at least 80ft, no problem. Its fun to pass modern 4 strokes on my war horse...
-
pics of you doing a 80ft tripple with a 86 cr500 would be legit. 8)
-
http://s1130.photobucket.com/albums/m525/jimmymoto832/ (http://s1130.photobucket.com/albums/m525/jimmymoto832/)
Here you go factoryX ..
-
(http://i52.tinypic.com/3460w0z.jpg)
Legit.
-
(http://i52.tinypic.com/3460w0z.jpg)
Legit.
Niiiice, has she got stock, suspension?
-
Its been revalved, but still is pretty soft compared to modern bikes.
I love riding that thing a certain tracks.. :D
-
Impossible, it must be photoshopped! Everyone knows that anything older than an '06 can't compete, even at the Amateur level!
-
I look at this way, just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I would be sketched out beyond belief with that old frame.
-
(http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m525/jimmymoto832/DSC_0005.jpg)
Here's another photo. Its not photoshopped and if you down side the hits, its not hard on the frame.
-
Jetz was simply joking, kind of like the other thread with 87 cr250 destroying 450's, everyone stated it was photo shopped because apparently older bikes are all out dated and useless and will never keep up with today's tech.
-
If a newer bike beats an older bike, it must be photoshoped, because they toned down all the newer bikes. The 80s bikes were more hard hitting and newer bikes are smoother. That's why 4 strokes are so popular, they have watered down power delivery :)
-
exactly.
-
If a newer bike beats an older bike, it must be photoshoped, because they toned down all the newer bikes. The 80s bikes were more hard hitting and newer bikes are smoother. That's why 4 strokes are so popular, they have watered down power delivery :)
You obviously haven't ridden many new bikes. My 2010 CRF 450 has boatloads more torque and power than my 86 CR 500.
You mention that the bikes from the 80s were hard hitting, I would differ with you and say they didn't have much of a powerband compared to the modern 4 strokes. there just different types of beast.
Don't get me wrong I love two-strokes, my 09 YZ gets rode more than any of my 17 motorcycles..... ;D
-
Your CRF has more than 65 horsepower (CR500 number)? Holy shit! How big is the turbo?!
-
The last air cooled cr500 was the HP king by far !!the kaw was there also ,the crf has 50 or so
-
Your CRF has more than 65 horsepower (CR500 number)? Holy shit! How big is the turbo?!
Put the glue bottle down..
There's not a stock modern 4 stroke that makes 65 hp.
They make more in the range of 55 hp and that old 86 comes in around the same, maybe a little less.
Its just how its delivered amongst other things, that make them SO different...
-
Ya I know, my John Deere makes 800 HP, damn modern 4 strokes and their power delivery!
-
Your CRF has more than 65 horsepower (CR500 number)? Holy shit! How big is the turbo?!
Jetz,
The only place CR 500's had 65 hp was at the brochure.
-
with pipe and carb, they pushed 70hp... porting, :o
-
I'd compare weight and torque figures for the two bikes.The CR500 was tuned for rideability and can easily produce more then 60 rear wheel horsepower.
-
"55" was stock with factory tuning.... ;)
-
Not sure how much you can tune a steam engine made out of pine cones. I don't think metal or gasoline was invented until 2004 with the 4 stroke, so was impossible 20 years ago to have a machine with a power band.
-
You want to try and compare a CRF450 against a CR500? This might help --->
CR500's vs CRF450r's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHKbAQ1QkJY#ws)
-
This is off-topic a bit, but don't underestimate the power of a steam engine. They had those things putting out over 5,000 horsepower in the '30s, which is more than what their diesel-electric replacements produce today, for the most part. The primary reason they went out of favor was their water consumption and the fact that you need two men per engine, while a diesel let you run multiple engines on a single crew with simple electronics. With a system to condense spent steam and modern computerized systems to take workload (and therefore cost) off the crew, steam may rise again for extreme heavy-load applications (railroads and shipping) as diesel fuel prices rise. I read somewhere that some railroad in Switzerland just got some brand new steam engines a few years ago and are using them quite economically.
Anyway, as I said before, that's way off-topic.[/digression]
-
but they where a ticking time bomb, have you seen a boiler explosion?
-
Boiler explosions were a fairly rare occurrence, and were usually a result of a failure of the safety valve (which ensures that the pressure never goes above safe levels) or a serious error from the fireman who's supposed to be watching that kind of thing. Usually both had to take place at once. Like when Mythbusters did their experiment with the exploding water heater, they had to disable multiple safety systems in order to make it fail. I don't see the safety angle being much more of a concern that the use of jet engines today on airliners. Lose a fan-blade on one of those bad boys and it's all over, yet flying is still safer than walking to the neighbor's house.
-
Those CR500's are gone!
The problem with the old steam engines was that their thermal efficiency was very low,most of the energy flew out the chimney in the form of waste heat.The advantage of a steam engine (like an electric motor) is that they are capable of tremendous torque from zero r.p.m.(which made them well suited to rail applications).Some of the old steam cars from the early 20th century were "rockets".
If you truly want to compare a CR500 to a CRF450 - compare reliability. :-X
-
psh the 500 wins that contest. ;D
-
CRF450, CRF250, YZ125, KX250 dyno (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdDJZu0ztzo#)
-
The scary parts? A 450 doing 11K RPM. A big bore2 stroke is lucky to do 8K.
A 250F doing 13K RPM!
-
Come on... :P
-
I think we're confusing a bike that is somewhat tuned down in potential (86 CR500) vs one that is maxed out (CRF or current 4-stroke). These 500 two strokes had tons of inherent performance potential. If these bikes were researched and modified to the hilt like the current 4-strokes are then you would have close to a 500GP bike on dirt. These bikes would far outperform the 4-strokes today. Its kind of funny to listen to someone try and argue that the 4-stroke is faster than the 2-stroke on this point.
-
I think we're confusing a bike that is somewhat tuned down in potential (86 CR500) vs one that is maxed out (CRF or current 4-stroke). These 500 two strokes had tons of inherent performance potential. If these bikes were researched and modified to the hilt like the current 4-strokes are then you would have close to a 500GP bike on dirt. These bikes would far outperform the 4-strokes today. Its kind of funny to listen to someone try and argue that the 4-stroke is faster than the 2-stroke on this point.
I don't think he is trying to, I think he is saying that even though he rides a 450, and in his opinion it has more torque and a stronger powerband, he still enjoys riding his two strokes.
-
Any Honda CR500 produces significantly more torque then modern 450 4T's.
-
I'm not sure of the torque figures of a CR500 as compared to my old 550 Berg but I'd be willing to bet they aren't too far off as I know the Berg had significantly more than my buddies CRF450.That said,I think some people confuse power characteristics with torque.The fact that a 4t's every other firing cycle produces a more manageable power delivery,all other things being equal of course,doesn't mean it has more torque,it just means it's easier to control,is more linear,and therefore gives the illusion of having more torque.
-
Right, people are confusing torque for low-end power. Four-stroke dyno charts typically show torque peaks that are quite low in the RPM range, and therefore a high peak torque generally makes for a lot of power at that RPM, leading to the connection with torque and low-end power. Two-strokes tend to have a torque peak much later in the range, meaning that torque gets multiplied by the large number of revs to produce a phenomenal peak horsepower, but a less impressive low-end. But then you have to consider that a same-displacement two-stroke makes more peak torque to begin with, and then you add that to the fact that the torque is being multiplied by the revs and you get an engine that really lays down the law when you're in the powerband. This situation makes the two-stroke great for racing (as we all know), but I suspect they'd have to do some significant tweaking to make it work in, say, a minivan where you actually want an early torque peak.