2 Strokes vs 4 strokes hill climbing

[Lolerbabop]

He's on a 300.

[_X_]

an rm 300 then.

[citabjockey]

Yes, that is the most significant factor - the rider. 2T or 4, a 250 or better is going to be a good ride uphill. I submit, however, that the riders of 2T have one ace in the hole. When you do blow it and you have to pick up your bike, you have less to lift and waste energy getting back onto the trail.

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.

[Lolerbabop]

an rm 300 then.

Nooee... The katoom.

[_X_]

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.

[VintageBlueSmoke]

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!

[TMKIWI]

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.

[Lolerbabop]

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.

[_X_]

Damn laberdoodle has 2 more posts than me! I can still catch his bald ass.

[Stusmoke]

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.

[VintageBlueSmoke]

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.

[Stusmoke]

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

[2STROKEREVOLUTION]

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.

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.

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.

[citabjockey]

Go to 9:15 into this video (almost at the end)

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.

[Stusmoke]

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.

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.

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