Is there a link between the bike you choose to ride and intelect?

[TMKIWI]

Well put motoman.

[shanes]

Well put motoman.

+1

[Stusmoke]

stusmoke. your definately right they are easier to ride. however there have been numerous test indicating that riding a 4t vs 2t allows a rider to make less mistakes albiet not a faste lap--reference transworldmx.com 250 vs 250f a few years back.  and riding a 250f or 450 you still have to ride the top of the power. have you ever heard a pro race by that wasnt on the rev limit? and clearly you dont watch RV2 race cuz he uses the rear to get through turns so fast. even on a 4t you have to steer with the rear. however vs a 2t you get more front end traction due to the extra weight and slower engine speed not spinning the rear tire as quick.

look my point is this. this site sometimes sounds more like a bunch 4t hating Nazi's then someone who is trying to help the sport. I've been on both sides. ive ridden every brand and every current engine size. i love riding 4ts and 2ts and both have pros and cons. the biggest factor right now is COST plain and simple. and  this give the nod to 2ts. that is why we/this sport needs them. what is needed is OPTIONS. like auto racing there are options for the high budget team and the low budget weekender. however our sport needs the pro level to reflect this. i wrote all about changes i felt would help the sport.
http://twostrokemotocross.com/forum/general-two-stroke-talk/whats-the-change-you-wish-to-see-in-motosupercross/

Ok first of all, being at the top of the power on a 4 stroke and 2 stroke is a whole different universe. Four strokes can simply be taken a gear lower. You shift when you feel like it and use the clutch in rare instances during a race.

Secondly, I agree about people here sometimes getting a little excited about the 2 v. 4 argument. We're all guilty, myself included. But at the end of the day, when you look at the big picture, todays definition of the four stroke motocross bike has NO place on a motocross track. Lets assume for a moment that you have a blank cheque for all your bikes. That takes costs out of the equation. And lets also assume that motocross around the world had the ridiculous rule of double displacement revoked. if its a 250, it gets run in the 250 class. Diesal, rotary, two stroke, four stroke, irrelevant.

What would you choose motoman? Would you choose the bike that didn't advance your skills very well, made you a lazy rider, wasn't as much fun to ride as its counterpart, harder to start (KTMs four strokes excluded here of course), made an obnoxious sound that carried a very long way, was heavier and slower?

[VintageBlueSmoke]

Sorry, Stu. With a blank check, myself and anyone else serious about winning would ride the bike that turned the most consistant fastest lap times. In most cases, today, that would be the 450F.

As Motoman said, our argument is about cost and since only the top 1% have a blank check, the rest of the sport - as well as the organizers, have to consider cost. Something the organizers are NOT doing by allowing the 4-stroke to have such an advantage.

Just like our elected polititions in government, our elected representitives in our sport are only looking out for themselves and their special interests.

[ford832]

Is there a link between the bike you choose to ride and intelect?

You spelled intellect incorrectly.

hth.

...and he rides a Honda.I guess that proves the premise of this thread.

[cr125 rider]

Is there a link between the bike you choose to ride and intelect?

You spelled intellect incorrectly.

hth.

...and he rides a Honda.I guess that proves the premise of this thread.

Ha i sold it.I am looking for a yz 250 or new ktm 250 if i can find one

[ford832]

Ha i sold it.I am looking for a yz 250 

We'll save you a seat at the Mensa meetings when you do.It's way more better to be more smarter. " title="Roll Eyes" class="smiley">

[Super Trucker]

To the op,  youtube  comments  are  stupid. They  can  be posted  by  a  9 or 65 yr  old, that  never  rode a bike.  I  don,t  look  at  youtube  comments  like  there  the law  of  all things.  Going  by  your  title  of the thread,  I   bought a  new  04 cr125  in 05,  because   I   wanted  the best handling  and durable  bike made.  In  02  I had  a  major back  operation   and  if I was  going to ride  again,  I was  riding  the best  handling  125  available.  I owned  10  125,s  and  3  250,s    the   04  cr125   goes   straight  threw   3 foot whoops,  20 inch  deep  square  holes ,  the  best  and most  precise   cornering  bike made,   a  rm,yz  or kx  is  not even  close.  The  cr  chassis  gives  ya   a   ton  of  confidence,  even  in  technical  jump  combos.  That   where   sketchy  on  other  bikes,  the  cr   will   have   you   master   the section  in no  time.   

[motoman356]

Ok first of all, being at the top of the power on a 4 stroke and 2 stroke is a whole different universe. Four strokes can simply be taken a gear lower. You shift when you feel like it and use the clutch in rare instances during a race.

Secondly, I agree about people here sometimes getting a little excited about the 2 v. 4 argument. We're all guilty, myself included. But at the end of the day, when you look at the big picture, todays definition of the four stroke motocross bike has NO place on a motocross track. Lets assume for a moment that you have a blank cheque for all your bikes. That takes costs out of the equation. And lets also assume that motocross around the world had the ridiculous rule of double displacement revoked. if its a 250, it gets run in the 250 class. Diesal, rotary, two stroke, four stroke, irrelevant.

What would you choose motoman? Would you choose the bike that didn't advance your skills very well, made you a lazy rider, wasn't as much fun to ride as its counterpart, harder to start (KTMs four strokes excluded here of course), made an obnoxious sound that carried a very long way, was heavier and slower?

having more torque is what a 4t has over the 2ts. top end power is still TOP END. and i do think the running 250 vs 250 is a valid option. its already being show cased at the amateur nationals

what would i choose to ride? something like a KTM 200sx honestly. it way more power than a 125 and didnt get me into trouble like a 250 and i can swap a top end in 30min. but oil changes/filters/ gas is all the same( i was walked through doing a 4t top end once). however the 2013 KXF250 looks pretty nice. 41hp how much does a yz250 put out? like 45? i remember MXA testing RV2's '08 KX250F saying it put down 46hp. that was almost 6yrs ago. 6 yrs ago the stock 250f's put out 37hp. yes these are heavier but slower? ive seen more ppl go faster on one of these than any other bike. and any bike ive ridden took all my focus and efforts i could simply relax more on a 250f. but as far as being lazy on one. If i raced lazy on one i didnt do well. its only when  i charged hard

[Stusmoke]

Ok first of all, being at the top of the power on a 4 stroke and 2 stroke is a whole different universe. Four strokes can simply be taken a gear lower. You shift when you feel like it and use the clutch in rare instances during a race.

Secondly, I agree about people here sometimes getting a little excited about the 2 v. 4 argument. We're all guilty, myself included. But at the end of the day, when you look at the big picture, todays definition of the four stroke motocross bike has NO place on a motocross track. Lets assume for a moment that you have a blank cheque for all your bikes. That takes costs out of the equation. And lets also assume that motocross around the world had the ridiculous rule of double displacement revoked. if its a 250, it gets run in the 250 class. Diesal, rotary, two stroke, four stroke, irrelevant.

What would you choose motoman? Would you choose the bike that didn't advance your skills very well, made you a lazy rider, wasn't as much fun to ride as its counterpart, harder to start (KTMs four strokes excluded here of course), made an obnoxious sound that carried a very long way, was heavier and slower?

having more torque is what a 4t has over the 2ts. top end power is still TOP END. and i do think the running 250 vs 250 is a valid option. its already being show cased at the amateur nationals

what would i choose to ride? something like a KTM 200sx honestly. it way more power than a 125 and didnt get me into trouble like a 250 and i can swap a top end in 30min. but oil changes/filters/ gas is all the same( i was walked through doing a 4t top end once). however the 2013 KXF250 looks pretty nice. 41hp how much does a yz250 put out? like 45? i remember MXA testing RV2's '08 KX250F saying it put down 46hp. that was almost 6yrs ago. 6 yrs ago the stock 250f's put out 37hp. yes these are heavier but slower? ive seen more ppl go faster on one of these than any other bike. and any bike ive ridden took all my focus and efforts i could simply relax more on a 250f. but as far as being lazy on one. If i raced lazy on one i didnt do well. its only when  i charged hard

MXAs YZ250 pumped out 47, not 45 if I remember correctly. And that was probably before they did whatever they did to get a KTM 250SXF to put out 42 horsepower when other magazines claim 38. Different dynos, obviously, but my point stands. If you're going to compare a modern, EFIed, tuned to the max Ryan villipoto's championship winning KX250F that is rebuilt after every single race weekend to a bone stock YZ250, then I resign my argument right now because that is a ridiculous notion. Now comparing the 250SXF to the 250SX has merit, in which case the 250SXF gets tromped.

250 two strokes don't have to be ridden flat out in the lites class. This is something that I think alot of people assume incorrectly, that you have more power than the 250Fs so you need to use every ounce of it. Against 250Fs, you don't have to be riding to the very edge of your physical fitness. Thats where big mistakes come from. Against my neighbours 250F, I can never go past half throttle on my YZ250 and still have a ton of breath left and be well and truly ahead of them. Now obviously, that guy sucks at riding. But my point stands.

Sorry, Stu. With a blank check, myself and anyone else serious about winning would ride the bike that turned the most consistant fastest lap times. In most cases, today, that would be the 450F.

Who wouldn't? I know I would. Although in my personal case I am far faster on two strokes than fours. I just can't ride them. But that was never the premise of my argument. The point of my argument was to look at the bigger picture. With equal displacement rules and no cost considerations, there is simply no advantage to a four stroke in motocross. Sure, they are easier to ride and will enable you to turn more consistent lap times, but at the end of the day they do that, because you are riding lazy. Put in the hours on a two stroke, and you'll be faster. Again, that is with equal displacement rules. It isn't as much fun to watch or ride. And I know for a fact that most people can turn consistently fast laptimes on two strokes. You just need practise in abundance and to be very comfortable on the bike.

[citabjockey]

One more point on the 2T 4T debate.

Lets say that the powers that be finally move to cc for cc racing.

Would that spell doom for 4T bikes? Would the tracks be a lopsided 2T as they are now with 4T? I doubt anyone here would complain about such an event but all the guys who really like their 250F bikes would probably start a web site called "fourstrokemotocross.com".

I can just see it now. The rule change happens. Not much changes for a few years. Then Yamaha fields a open 2T (say in the 400cc range) in the -- what is now -- 450cc class. They have a pro rider named Henry Douglas. He does ok on it and by the end of the season he is darn close to winning races on it. The writing is on the wall.

Hmmmmm.....

Nah , could never happen....

[Stusmoke]

Actually I think you have a valid point jockey. Everyone jumped up and down when motocross went all two stroke the first time. And everyone jumped up and down when it all went back to four strokes. It will probably always be swinging in direction. But there are most definitely people who would stick with their 250Fs because they like the easy riding style and have the money to make it competitive with the power of two strokes.

[citabjockey]

All it would take would be someone to tune a 400+ cc 2T to have just a tad more peak power than a 250F (250F's turn in darn near the fastest lap times these day, right?) with a power spread a mile wide -- just like a 450F. Except lighter. And cheaper. And easier to fix when it breaks. Should do just fine against the 450s.

But, to the original topic, would take someone with a mile wide intellect to engineer it.

Actually I think you have a valid point jockey. Everyone jumped up and down when motocross went all two stroke the first time. And everyone jumped up and down when it all went back to four strokes. It will probably always be swinging in direction. But there are most definitely people who would stick with their 250Fs because they like the easy riding style and have the money to make it competitive with the power of two strokes.

[Stusmoke]

Thats where we run into trouble hey? Still, it would be awesome. Alternatively, a 250 two stroke with the nice soft power hit of a four stroke. It can be done to a certain degree with flywheel weights. Something along the 48-50 horsepower mark seems to be optimal to make the most of the bikes power I reckon. I think if a 250F could put out around 48 or 49, it would destroy the 450 lap times. With the appropriate rider that is. Shot gun not paying that bill though... It would have to rev up past 14 k and the power wouldn't get to the ground well.

[SachsGS]

How much $$$ would it take to get the YZ 250 into the 50+ HP range vs. regular maintenance on a 250f? I see more and more dead 250f's showing up in the local adverts and they are going cheap.