Confessions

[Uniflow]

I confess I rode a fourstroke 250, and liked it! But before I get tossed out of this forum let's have a little look at what I rode. I like my 250T, love to ride it and will never sell it, but was surprised, no shocked, at how well this little fourstroke went. Tight, bumpy, slippery track where power was not needed in fact was a disadvantage. Hook up was the key, many twostrokes were there and most of the time sideways. This little fourstroke would just hook up and drive, like it was stuck to the dirt. The key to future twostroke development is to make them perform the same but less weight and more power. It needs to be under control! I think it's going to take more than just changing the frame on twostrokes  to modern fourstroke design frames , whats needed is a form of traction control. I can see there will be howls of outrage ( no electronics ) but that is whats letting the twostroke down! In their favor they are much cheaper to run ( twostrokes ).
Another point, this fourstroke changes direction much easier than it should, why? It turns in much better than my 250T, same weight. Are the frames that much different? Or is it the fact that the fourstroke has a counter rotating balance shaft helping negate flywheel mass?
Anyway I won't be trading my 250T any time soon but I did like this YZF. The bike I was riding is the YZF I bought to use the frame as a twostroke project bike. It does seem a pity to take this engine out, probably change my mind when it need's it's next piston and I'm so over oil changes!

[Stusmoke]

I confess I rode a fourstroke 250, and liked it! But before I get tossed out of this forum let's have a little look at what I rode. I like my 250T, love to ride it and will never sell it, but was surprised, no shocked, at how well this little fourstroke went. Tight, bumpy, slippery track where power was not needed in fact was a disadvantage. Hook up was the key, many twostrokes were there and most of the time sideways. This little fourstroke would just hook up and drive, like it was stuck to the dirt. The key to future twostroke development is to make them perform the same but less weight and more power. It needs to be under control! I think it's going to take more than just changing the frame on twostrokes  to modern fourstroke design frames , whats needed is a form of traction control. I can see there will be howls of outrage ( no electronics ) but that is whats letting the twostroke down! In their favor they are much cheaper to run ( twostrokes ).
Another point, this fourstroke changes direction much easier than it should, why? It turns in much better than my 250T, same weight. Are the frames that much different? Or is it the fact that the fourstroke has a counter rotating balance shaft helping negate flywheel mass?
Anyway I won't be trading my 250T any time soon but I did like this YZF. The bike I was riding is the YZF I bought to use the frame as a twostroke project bike. It does seem a pity to take this engine out, probably change my mind when it need's it's next piston and I'm so over oil changes!

Traction control... For real? Why don't we go ahead and throw in a jake brake, automatic transmission and abs brakes. Its a stupid idea no matter what stroke of the bike. Motocross is what? An extreme sport. This extreme sport was already made a hell of a lot easier when four strokes became dominant why on earth would you make it even easier? It used to be you were racing on sundays and gyming every day of the week just to pull a 7 lap moto on a smoker. Now local riders are smothered in puppy fat.

This sport is designed to be extremely difficult and demanding. To the point that it takes a proper dose of dedication to go far. Now its just getting easier and easier. Instead of traction control, why don't people just learn how to ride properly?

[cnrcpla]

This sport is designed to be extremely difficult and demanding. To the point that it takes a proper dose of dedication to go far. Now its just getting easier and easier. Instead of traction control, why don't people just learn how to ride properly?

Well put. Motocross is dangerous, but with people seeing these bikes that are so easy to ride, throwing a leg over them and ripping is easy, until you loose control and then you have like 250 lbs hurdling out of control with a rider on it. MX isn't what it used to be, whats next pods that are crash proof that can do 200 mph though a track by itself with someone sitting inside? That's where I see it going, the less skill going into something, the less interesting I see it personally.

 Anyways, four strokes are good for that, easily being ridden. I'm sure I could have a fair amount of fun on a 250f in the woods, but I would never want to miss the hit of my power band. Though I disagree with traction control and whatnot, I see your point. It would make riding easy. A little to easy though 

[Jeram]

Just install a race spec of the Ignitech or zeeltronic, they have programmable RPM acceleration thresholds where the motor will switch to a second ignition map if the rpms accelerate too quickly (wheel spin)

[ford832]

When it's all about going as fast as you can consistently,it's hard to beat a fourstroke for the average guy.I do my fastest laps on a 250F-even when I'm not used to it.These days,I don't care,I just want to have fun-so it's a two stroke for me.If I wanted the best finish possible......

[Stusmoke]

When it's all about going as fast as you can consistently,it's hard to beat a fourstroke for the average guy.I do my fastest laps on a 250F-even when I'm not used to it.These days,I don't care,I just want to have fun-so it's a two stroke for me.If I wanted the best finish possible......

I don't find it thus. But thats just me and the vast majority of people find a four stonk easier to ride. My hack and slash, attack the track, aggressive and steer from the rear attitude make pulling the bulk of a fooper around insanely tiring and frustrating cos it just doesn't do what I want it to.

[ford832]

My 125's I used to shift 14 times per lap.My Berg I shifted twice-both in the air so no time lost.If I happened to miss a shift either up or down on the 125 I might as well have thrown out a boat anchor.On the Berg,it didn't matter,it would pull it in a high gear or rev in a low.Not as much fun but more consistent with less effort-or skill for that matter.

[Uniflow]

Well I suppose I deserve this. Don't get me wrong, I was just a little shocked at the YZF. I only do "woods riding anyway" not MX, accept VMX.
Back in the day, when a TS90 was desirable ( some would say never ) I had the occasion to find a TS90 in a fertilizer bin on a farm, I was probably 13. Saved and saved ( $60 ) and bought said TS90 from the farmer. As I was loading it up on Mum's trailer to take it home the farmer bought over a box of stuff, a " hot up kit ". I spent many hours at the local Suzuki shop researching the parts book to see what was missing. Eventually got it all together and running with the hot kit fitted. My dad told us to run it in and don't rev, it so my friends and I spent the day running it around our track keeping the revs low. We knew that a hot kit must make more power but the consensus was " it's gutless" until one of us hit the power by accident down a hill, we were astonished. We had no idea what a powerband was until that moment! There was a fight over who was going to ride it next. It got run in alright, at full throttle after that. It made an SL 100 look like what it was, a slug! I've hated fourstrokes ever since. ( until yesterday ).

[SachsGS]

The reality is that any motorcycle is fun to ride, 2T or 4T. I ride offroad and the ability of a big 2T to lug,scream and excel in any terrain makes them the most fun for me. I also just don't have the time or desire to maintain a high performance 4T right now.

[twosmoke595]

I confess I rode a fourstroke 250, and liked it! But before I get tossed out of this forum let's have a little look at what I rode. I like my 250T, love to ride it and will never sell it, but was surprised, no shocked, at how well this little fourstroke went. Tight, bumpy, slippery track where power was not needed in fact was a disadvantage. Hook up was the key, many twostrokes were there and most of the time sideways. This little fourstroke would just hook up and drive, like it was stuck to the dirt. The key to future twostroke development is to make them perform the same but less weight and more power. It needs to be under control! I think it's going to take more than just changing the frame on twostrokes  to modern fourstroke design frames , whats needed is a form of traction control. I can see there will be howls of outrage ( no electronics ) but that is whats letting the twostroke down! In their favor they are much cheaper to run ( twostrokes ).
Another point, this fourstroke changes direction much easier than it should, why? It turns in much better than my 250T, same weight. Are the frames that much different? Or is it the fact that the fourstroke has a counter rotating balance shaft helping negate flywheel mass?
Anyway I won't be trading my 250T any time soon but I did like this YZF. The bike I was riding is the YZF I bought to use the frame as a twostroke project bike. It does seem a pity to take this engine out, probably change my mind when it need's it's next piston and I'm so over oil changes!

you my friend are saying what many of us say. the 4 strokes are great motorcycles, its the consequences that go along with them that we dont' like.

one thing that does make the 4 strokes ride the way they do, is the weigh bias on the front wheel, they turn with the front wheel, whereas 2 strokes turn with the back wheel. that's why they feel so planted is because a lot of weight is on the front wheel

a 2 stroke is pretty easy to tune to make it less 2 strokey, but you will always have the tendencies to lift the wheel and spin a little. a flywheel and sprocket changes that dramatically

[Stusmoke]

I confess I rode a fourstroke 250, and liked it! But before I get tossed out of this forum let's have a little look at what I rode. I like my 250T, love to ride it and will never sell it, but was surprised, no shocked, at how well this little fourstroke went. Tight, bumpy, slippery track where power was not needed in fact was a disadvantage. Hook up was the key, many twostrokes were there and most of the time sideways. This little fourstroke would just hook up and drive, like it was stuck to the dirt. The key to future twostroke development is to make them perform the same but less weight and more power. It needs to be under control! I think it's going to take more than just changing the frame on twostrokes  to modern fourstroke design frames , whats needed is a form of traction control. I can see there will be howls of outrage ( no electronics ) but that is whats letting the twostroke down! In their favor they are much cheaper to run ( twostrokes ).
Another point, this fourstroke changes direction much easier than it should, why? It turns in much better than my 250T, same weight. Are the frames that much different? Or is it the fact that the fourstroke has a counter rotating balance shaft helping negate flywheel mass?
Anyway I won't be trading my 250T any time soon but I did like this YZF. The bike I was riding is the YZF I bought to use the frame as a twostroke project bike. It does seem a pity to take this engine out, probably change my mind when it need's it's next piston and I'm so over oil changes!

you my friend are saying what many of us say. the 4 strokes are great motorcycles

Assuming you're talking about four stroke motocrossers and motocrossers only, I disagree. Strongly. They've caused costs to sky rocket, they've driven up the injuries hugely, they couldn't build your skills properly if you rode them 24/7, they teach you bad habits, they handle like a boxing kangaroo that just had it tail chopped off, they're crazy expensive, kick starting them is like trying to bring someone back to life, they force tracks to close because of the noise, they're boring and unrewarding as balls to ride and you've got to be constantly changing their oil. In comparison to a two stroke that is the opposite of just about every point there, how are they considered to be even remotely okay? They are useless and have only gotten as far as they have now because of rule changes.

[2T Institute]

I confess I rode a fourstroke 250, and liked it! But before I get tossed out of this forum let's have a little look at what I rode. I like my 250T, love to ride it and will never sell it, but was surprised, no shocked, at how well this little fourstroke went. Tight, bumpy, slippery track where power was not needed in fact was a disadvantage. Hook up was the key, many twostrokes were there and most of the time sideways. This little fourstroke would just hook up and drive, like it was stuck to the dirt. The key to future twostroke development is to make them perform the same but less weight and more power. It needs to be under control! I think it's going to take more than just changing the frame on twostrokes  to modern fourstroke design frames , whats needed is a form of traction control. I can see there will be howls of outrage ( no electronics ) but that is whats letting the twostroke down! In their favor they are much cheaper to run ( twostrokes ).
Another point, this fourstroke changes direction much easier than it should, why? It turns in much better than my 250T, same weight. Are the frames that much different? Or is it the fact that the fourstroke has a counter rotating balance shaft helping negate flywheel mass?
Anyway I won't be trading my 250T any time soon but I did like this YZF. The bike I was riding is the YZF I bought to use the frame as a twostroke project bike. It does seem a pity to take this engine out, probably change my mind when it need's it's next piston and I'm so over oil changes!

Said the same a few times, flattening and widening the torque curve, then doing everything to gain traction. I think the balance shaft will have something to do with negating crankshaft inertia. This goes hand in hand, added crank inertia will help keep RPM up, gains traction and allows you to get on the power earlier every corner. At the expense of side to side flickablity which is where the balance shaft come in.
Broadening the torque curve helps when you do spin the tyre and is a bit of insurance with 'no surprises' in what will happen if you nail it out of a slippery corner. Easy for the tyre to get overwhealmed when you have a power pulse every revolution.

Things like a variable size stinger and ignition linked to a 3 axis accelerometer will help as well.

[VintageBlueSmoke]

Traction control... For real? Why don't we go ahead and throw in a jake brake, automatic transmission and abs brakes. Its a stupid idea no matter what stroke of the bike. Motocross is what? An extreme sport. This extreme sport was already made a hell of a lot easier when four strokes became dominant why on earth would you make it even easier? It used to be you were racing on sundays and gyming every day of the week just to pull a 7 lap moto on a smoker. Now local riders are smothered in puppy fat.

This sport is designed to be extremely difficult and demanding. To the point that it takes a proper dose of dedication to go far. Now its just getting easier and easier. Instead of traction control, why don't people just learn how to ride properly?

A little closed minded, aren't we Stu? First of all, Terry Cunningham won the National Enduro series in America on an automaic Husqvarna. Not once, but twice. I've known lots of guys who swear by them. In addition, one of the hottest new upgrades to any bike these days is the Rekluse clutch. Guys have been winning everything from Erzberg to Glenn Helen with it. Part of the popularity of the 4$ was that it was easier to ride - fast. ABS has been toyed with at various times.

It is call technology and unless it gets expressly banned by the rules (i.e. minumim weight limits, "production" rules, spec series, etc), technology will march on. Can you imagine motocross today if those engineers said "well enough alone" in 1976? we'd all be riding 360 Husqvarna's!

Oh waite...I am!

[Stusmoke]

Traction control... For real? Why don't we go ahead and throw in a jake brake, automatic transmission and abs brakes. Its a stupid idea no matter what stroke of the bike. Motocross is what? An extreme sport. This extreme sport was already made a hell of a lot easier when four strokes became dominant why on earth would you make it even easier? It used to be you were racing on sundays and gyming every day of the week just to pull a 7 lap moto on a smoker. Now local riders are smothered in puppy fat.

This sport is designed to be extremely difficult and demanding. To the point that it takes a proper dose of dedication to go far. Now its just getting easier and easier. Instead of traction control, why don't people just learn how to ride properly?

A little closed minded, aren't we Stu? First of all, Terry Cunningham won the National Enduro series in America on an automaic Husqvarna. Not once, but twice. I've known lots of guys who swear by them. In addition, one of the hottest new upgrades to any bike these days is the Rekluse clutch. Guys have been winning everything from Erzberg to Glenn Helen with it. Part of the popularity of the 4$ was that it was easier to ride - fast. ABS has been toyed with at various times.

It is call technology and unless it gets expressly banned by the rules (i.e. minumim weight limits, "production" rules, spec series, etc), technology will march on. Can you imagine motocross today if those engineers said "well enough alone" in 1976? we'd all be riding 360 Husqvarna's!

Oh waite...I am!

I'm not disputing the usefulness of technology such as ABS, traction control, DI/FI automatic transmission at all. Quite the contrary, for a farmer to be able to putt around checking the fences without clutching is useful. For a dual purpose bike, why the hell wouldn't you want ABS? Anything that goes on bitchimun should, in my honest opinion be outfitted with ABS by law cos the second those wheels lock up, you're steering nowhere fast. And its undeniable that most peoples first reaction to a suprise on the road is to jam the brakes resulting in a skid. Again, traction control should be compulsory cos it gives you that little edge that might save your life. DI/FI, I've already thrown my support in for that on two strokes on two conditions: Its ultra reliable and doesn't need new fuses and throttle bodies every 20 seconds and it doesn't make the two stroke into a four stonk on the power curve.

I may favor the "lets make everything easier and safer for ourselves" attitude on the road for everyday users, but it doesn't belong in an extreme sport. Enduro, motocross, supermoto, motogp, all extreme sports. Why the geezus would you want to make it easier? Thats the whole point of an extreme sport: Making sure only those with a healthy dose of dedication and talent can properly run it. Without traction control, all you've got to do is cover the clutch a little to keep your rear from getting out of line. Thats it. Its not hard and for the extra tricky bits you exert yourself LESS by not giving it as much gas. This teaches riders to be more aware, to better at what they do and HAVE MORE FUN! Why would anyone in their right mind want to take that away and replace it with boredom and ease of use? Only a fairy thinks thats a good thing.

As for all of us riding 360 huskys, would that really be such a bad thing?

[chump6784]

The first 250f i ever rode was a 2011 kxf on hard pack. After only a couple laps i pulled into the pits and said to my brother "i know how you go so fast on this thing." It may have less power but i could get on the throttle earlier out of corners and it seemed to stay lower over jumps and straight away my lap times would have been neck and neck with my 250T. For those few laps i contemplated selling my rm 250 for one. Then i got back on my rm and knew exactly why i own a 250 2 stroke.

The 250f was fun because i was cutting near perfect laps, the 250T was fun because it is just damn fun. If riding was just about results and i had no shortage of money i would ride a modded 250f, but results aren't everything and money isn't endless so a 250T is the bike i choose to ride. That being said, my KTM is much easier to ride than my RM. KTM has made a bike with more power yet made it smoother and it hooks up pretty well, it still has a big hump in the torque curve but the power curve is very linear and it is much easier to ride than a jap 250T