I was at the airport last month and I was looking for some reading material for he flight. I searched for a good dirt bike magazine but alas I could only find street bike magazines. The best I could find with any type of dirt bike mention was CYCLE WORLD.
So I purchased this wretched piece of shit magazine and read their ill founded idiotic reviews of the latest and crappiest dirt bikes. Boy did it make my blood boil reading their lame ass review. It has many flaws starting with the opening paragraph.
"Don't let displacement fool you: Not only have 250cc four-stroke motocrossers edged 125cc two-strokes out of the picture, they've pretty much created a class of their own. Sure, the Lites class is still full of the youthful spirit associated with the 125cc bikes of the past but the performance is higher than ever..."
Ok, DON'T LET FUCKING DOUBLE DISPLACEMENT FOOL YOU INTO WHAT? THINKING THAT THEY HAVE AN ADVANTAGE? That fucking whole first sentence reads like it was written by a retarded sloth. The sentence makes absolutely no fucking sense in the sane world.
Now, it does get better because their reviews of these bikes essentially have turned "4 strokes" on their heads, IMHO. The reason is quite simple. Four strokes in the past were said and had a wide power band. They had pull from a low RPM to a high RPM, while not fast revving, they made good trail bikes for the semi-retarded. Reading these reviews about these new four strokes read like two strokes. Bravo Honda, Yamaha, Kawasaki, Suzuki, you've now turned four strokes into two strokes with less power than the eqvuilvent two stroke, more moving parts and yes, the same damn narrow power band that was the only thing four strokes were supposed to have an advantage with (with the execption of Maico, who got this right in a 2 stroke, they are still the most amazing engines ever produced and ever will be produced
Some memorable quotes from this article.
"Bottom end delivery is completely flat, no immediate hit; the engine only starts doing some serious buissness way past the middle of the rpm range."
"But the YZ doesnt quite cut it in the power department, needing more oomph everywhere".
"In engine performance, the KX-F has excellent midrange and top-end power but lacks a little punch right off the bottom where it lugs instead of having an abrupt pull."
My thoughts? Uh, sounds like a wanna be two stroke, isn't that a complaint they have against the two strokes? Narrow power bands? I know the reviews are ridiculous and not to be taken seriously but still sounds fishy to me. Oh and I LOVE the next quote.
"Okay, one tester that the engine was too abrupt in tis on/off throttle response. Sissy!"
Oh wow, another complaint they have about 2 strokes being too hard hitting and uncontrollable, however when it's in a crap ass four stroke they love it and think it's great. I remember a recent Maico article where they complained they peed their pants attempting to ride it and liked the panties of the sissy four strokes.
For me, I don't really give a crap about double displacement. These bikes are junk. They should have kept the old four stroke, they had purpose, they lasted longer for all their moving parts and they were different from two strokes. Now, they are just trying to be two strokes and failing miserably. Trash this crap and melt it down into connecting rods, pistons and bearings for the old Maicos and KTMs is what I say.
There was one interesting article though after this one that talked about how expensive maintaining a 4 stroke was and at the end had shit LULZ quote:
"Many an MX dad has asked his district referee if there's any way to bring back that simple machine, the two-stroke."
If anyone is interested, I will scan it this article for the LAWLZ.