Post by: GP500cc on August 07, 2012, 11:27:08 PM
Modern 4-strokes can't go near idle without stalling.? A 300 2-banger can go right down to near idle and keep going, and it's delivery is super smooth off the bottom. That's why 2-strokes dominate extreme enduros in my opinion. Over the years I've noticed more 300 2-bangers in extreme enduro results than any other bike. The 2011 Erzberg had just 9 finishers they were all 2-strokes, 2 250's and 7 300's.
Post by: SachsGS on August 08, 2012, 05:23:29 AM
Post by: riffraff on August 08, 2012, 05:55:52 AM
Post by: VintageBlueSmoke on August 08, 2012, 11:20:40 AM
Not bad for a little 2-stroke!
Post by: Bioflex on August 08, 2012, 01:08:51 PM
A lot depends on the terrain, in my experience (I have multiple modern 2 and 4 strokes) small bore 2 strokes really struggle on slower, rocky hills where traction is difficult and you can't carry good speed.
Up smoother tight hills, even slippery ones, small bores are awesome!
Big bore 2 strokes are great up any hill, unless you have to be very sensitive with the throttle.
Generally speaking though if the hills tough, I think a 4 strokes a bit easier to get up on, however the difference is less than it used to be, as modern 4 strokes don't like to lug much.
Post by: eprovenzano on August 08, 2012, 01:12:49 PM
Rewatch "On Any Sunday" and pay particular attention to the part about hill climbing. In it, they show the nitro burning BSA, extended swingarm monsters rocketing up the hill. Then they show Malcolm Smith on a stock 400 Husky. He was 4th OVERALL!
Not bad for a little 2-stroke!
Malcolm Smith was and still is in a different league altogether. He was just so smooth, no wasted movement, no wasted effort. His ability to pick the correct lines were amazing. At the end of a long race, he looked as though he could run the race again and still not be as tired as the other racers.
BTW "On Any Sunday" what a classis movie
As 2 vs 4's, I've only ridden smokers, but I could understand the additional torque of a stroker being helpfull at times, but give me the light weight, smoker and I will make it work for me while putting a bigger smile on my face. To me that's what its all about, the grin factor.
Post by: gc8steve on August 08, 2012, 11:39:15 PM
Post by: SachsGS on August 09, 2012, 04:55:36 AM
Post by: factoryX on August 09, 2012, 05:24:57 AM
Post by: VintageBlueSmoke on August 09, 2012, 09:38:24 AM
i recently went from a crf250x to a tm300 and have gotta say that the 2t is a lot easier to get up any hill or through any big mud bog than my 4 stroke ever was , i always belived the 4 stroke was able to put the power down better in all situations but now i know i'd rather have my tm or any 300 for that matter out in the bush , last week i went for a ride on some old trails that always tested my ability to the max on the honda ,hit up the same trail that included some real nasty rock climbs and wet slippery clay hills and the 300 made it feel easy
Unfortunately, that is not a good example. You are comparing apples to oranges. A CRF250X is about equivalent to a 125 2-stroke (enduro type, i.e KTM EXC) where as the 4-stroke equivalent of the TM300 is the 450F.
The CRF250X has to be zung up hills. It really was gutless when you think about it. You'd have no such problem with the 450. That said, we have a hill on our MX track that the 250 out performs the 2-strokes. It is long and steep with loose dirt square edge step woops all the way to the top. And just to make it more difficult, there is a kink 1/2 way up. It is not hard in the sense that some people can't make it. It is hard with the "trying to go fast" in mind.
Post by: gc8steve on August 10, 2012, 11:24:46 AM
i recently went from a crf250x to a tm300 and have gotta say that the 2t is a lot easier to get up any hill or through any big mud bog than my 4 stroke ever was , i always belived the 4 stroke was able to put the power down better in all situations but now i know i'd rather have my tm or any 300 for that matter out in the bush , last week i went for a ride on some old trails that always tested my ability to the max on the honda ,hit up the same trail that included some real nasty rock climbs and wet slippery clay hills and the 300 made it feel easy
Unfortunately, that is not a good example. You are comparing apples to oranges. A CRF250X is about equivalent to a 125 2-stroke (enduro type, i.e KTM EXC) where as the 4-stroke equivalent of the TM300 is the 450F.
ok fair enough , the tm300 was able to climb up hills that i could never get close to getting up on my crf450x
The CRF250X has to be zung up hills. It really was gutless when you think about it. You'd have no such problem with the 450. That said, we have a hill on our MX track that the 250 out performs the 2-strokes. It is long and steep with loose dirt square edge step woops all the way to the top. And just to make it more difficult, there is a kink 1/2 way up. It is not hard in the sense that some people can't make it. It is hard with the "trying to go fast" in mind.
Post by: Stusmoke on August 11, 2012, 12:21:22 AM
Post by: Lolerbabop on August 11, 2012, 12:32:44 AM
Post by: SachsGS on August 11, 2012, 03:59:30 PM
Post by: _X_ on August 11, 2012, 07:49:20 PM
Post by: Lolerbabop on August 11, 2012, 09:31:46 PM
Post by: _X_ on August 11, 2012, 09:44:43 PM
Post by: citabjockey on August 11, 2012, 10:29:35 PM
I saw the guy pass an rm 250 on the way up. it is all about rider skill not about bike. if youre fast youre fast.if your slow youre slow. etc. we just choose to ride two strokes.
Post by: Lolerbabop on August 11, 2012, 11:33:35 PM
an rm 300 then.Nooee... The katoom.
Post by: _X_ on August 11, 2012, 11:44:06 PM
Post by: VintageBlueSmoke on August 12, 2012, 11:08:16 AM
An XR250 is geared a lot different than today's MXers. You have to really zing the modern bikes so they make more HP than a 1/2 sized 2 stroke. Whereas the XR250 was never entered into the HP wars and just lugs along. They built a bike that works (like an old Toyota Hilux!). It may not be the fastest, but it keeps going...and going...and going!
Post by: TMKIWI on August 12, 2012, 11:38:46 AM
Stu,
An XR250 is geared a lot different than today's MXers. You have to really zing the modern bikes so they make more HP than a 1/2 sized 2 stroke. Whereas the XR250 was never entered into the HP wars and just lugs along. They built a bike that works (like an old Toyota Hilux!). It may not be the fastest, but it keeps going...and going...and going!
Thats so true. I don't have a problem with the old 4 strokes. Less revs, less power = longer lasting engines.
I had a TT600 2 years ago and it was fun except I am not big enough for a 145Kg bike.
Post by: Lolerbabop on August 12, 2012, 03:01:40 PM
watch the video again the guy he stops in front of and then makes a noise is on an rm 250. he looks beat and about to call it quits then the katoom rider continues on up the hill. sheese. I do agree with the ace in the whole submission and the usually start right up as well.
Post by: _X_ on August 12, 2012, 10:24:55 PM
Post by: Stusmoke on August 13, 2012, 06:12:59 AM
Stu,
An XR250 is geared a lot different than today's MXers. You have to really zing the modern bikes so they make more HP than a 1/2 sized 2 stroke. Whereas the XR250 was never entered into the HP wars and just lugs along. They built a bike that works (like an old Toyota Hilux!). It may not be the fastest, but it keeps going...and going...and going!
Thats so true. I don't have a problem with the old 4 strokes. Less revs, less power = longer lasting engines.
I had a TT600 2 years ago and it was fun except I am not big enough for a 145Kg bike.
KIWI: Hell yeah. I absolutely wailed my little XR100r for a good 3 years and it still hasn't skipped a beat. And it still hauls my 87 kg butt around no worries.
VBS: I was referring to the enduro bikes of today, sorry if that wasn't clear. But you're right though, even with double displacement it still needs to rev high to pump out the HP so that the fooper troopers can say: its got more power. Anyway my point was that an old XR can take on any of the modern enduros. Goes to show that these advanced bikes that everyone is paying 12k for (in Australia) is worth a whole lot less than a bike you'd pay 2 or 3 for (A good condition XR). High revs= high costs.
Post by: VintageBlueSmoke on August 13, 2012, 12:11:12 PM
A KTM 250 EXC raced in constant MX will have the same lifespan and failures.
Post by: Stusmoke on August 15, 2012, 09:36:38 AM
But Stu, you are forgetting that there is no difference really between the modern enduro's and the MX'ers except gearing, spring rates, and spark arrester (and maybe protections) unless you are referring to the KL, XR, DR lines. The WR's do have a milder carb but little else.
A KTM 250 EXC raced in constant MX will have the same lifespan and failures.
Ooooohhhh I understand now. Sorry I got a bit confused there. You're right thats my bad
Post by: 2STROKEREVOLUTION on August 15, 2012, 09:12:47 PM
I too am an XR fan. I learned to ride on a XR100 (now my wife's bike). I moved up to a XR250R, that I still have, and my dad rides a XR400R.Stu,
An XR250 is geared a lot different than today's MXers. You have to really zing the modern bikes so they make more HP than a 1/2 sized 2 stroke. Whereas the XR250 was never entered into the HP wars and just lugs along. They built a bike that works (like an old Toyota Hilux!). It may not be the fastest, but it keeps going...and going...and going!
Thats so true. I don't have a problem with the old 4 strokes. Less revs, less power = longer lasting engines.
I had a TT600 2 years ago and it was fun except I am not big enough for a 145Kg bike.
KIWI: Hell yeah. I absolutely wailed my little XR100r for a good 3 years and it still hasn't skipped a beat. And it still hauls my 87 kg butt around no worries.
VBS: I was referring to the enduro bikes of today, sorry if that wasn't clear. But you're right though, even with double displacement it still needs to rev high to pump out the HP so that the fooper troopers can say: its got more power. Anyway my point was that an old XR can take on any of the modern enduros. Goes to show that these advanced bikes that everyone is paying 12k for (in Australia) is worth a whole lot less than a bike you'd pay 2 or 3 for (A good condition XR). High revs= high costs.
What you said is very ture, they lug and lug and last forever. So why buy a newer bike or a 2-stroke? Weight and chassis. My XR250 weighs a good 30-40lbs more than my KTM 380SX. The XR400 was measured by us at 45lbs heavier. That makes a big difference in the technical sections. The weight of the XR250 is better, but it doesn't have the power for bigger, steeper hills, especially anything with sand. The XRs do have great suspension though, much better than the KTM. My dad is looking at getting a newer KTM 500EXC to drop 25lbs from his bike, or an out of state street legal 300 for even less weight.
I guess my bottom line is, the XRs are good, rider skill is most important, but same skill on a better bike will do better with less exhaustion. When you look at Erzberg and Romaniacs results, it is impossible to deny the 300 2-stroke is king of hard enduro.
Post by: citabjockey on August 15, 2012, 09:43:31 PM
Me and my KTM380 on a hill with "moving" obstacles. As is always the case with a gopro the hill is steeper than it looks. It also has a set of steps just before the 2nd "obstacle". Effortless stuff. And if the bike falls over I only have 220 lbs to pick up. Not much more grunt needed than this thing has.
At 5:15 is a somewhat steep hill as well but without the steps or other things in the way. The bike just accelerates all the way up. Too much fun.
Post by: Stusmoke on August 16, 2012, 12:54:28 PM
I too am an XR fan. I learned to ride on a XR100 (now my wife's bike). I moved up to a XR250R, that I still have, and my dad rides a XR400R.Stu,
An XR250 is geared a lot different than today's MXers. You have to really zing the modern bikes so they make more HP than a 1/2 sized 2 stroke. Whereas the XR250 was never entered into the HP wars and just lugs along. They built a bike that works (like an old Toyota Hilux!). It may not be the fastest, but it keeps going...and going...and going!
Thats so true. I don't have a problem with the old 4 strokes. Less revs, less power = longer lasting engines.
I had a TT600 2 years ago and it was fun except I am not big enough for a 145Kg bike.
KIWI: Hell yeah. I absolutely wailed my little XR100r for a good 3 years and it still hasn't skipped a beat. And it still hauls my 87 kg butt around no worries.
VBS: I was referring to the enduro bikes of today, sorry if that wasn't clear. But you're right though, even with double displacement it still needs to rev high to pump out the HP so that the fooper troopers can say: its got more power. Anyway my point was that an old XR can take on any of the modern enduros. Goes to show that these advanced bikes that everyone is paying 12k for (in Australia) is worth a whole lot less than a bike you'd pay 2 or 3 for (A good condition XR). High revs= high costs.
What you said is very ture, they lug and lug and last forever. So why buy a newer bike or a 2-stroke? Weight and chassis. My XR250 weighs a good 30-40lbs more than my KTM 380SX. The XR400 was measured by us at 45lbs heavier. That makes a big difference in the technical sections. The weight of the XR250 is better, but it doesn't have the power for bigger, steeper hills, especially anything with sand. The XRs do have great suspension though, much better than the KTM. My dad is looking at getting a newer KTM 500EXC to drop 25lbs from his bike, or an out of state street legal 300 for even less weight.
I guess my bottom line is, the XRs are good, rider skill is most important, but same skill on a better bike will do better with less exhaustion. When you look at Erzberg and Romaniacs results, it is impossible to deny the 300 2-stroke is king of hard enduro.
They're the only fooper I would consider buying. The little XR100s are just the best kids bike to putter around on. Obviously if you're even thinking about MX its not so ideal but for a little guy whos getting on his first bike its great to show them the ropes. First stop of the full size machines has gotta be a 125 though