Coming Soon
Home > Forum


Author Topic: OSET 20.0  (Read 1744 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline VintageBlueSmoke

  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 157
    • View Profile
OSET 20.0
« on: September 29, 2013, 03:46:34 PM »
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 04:00:00 PM by ' »
08 Speed Bird Quad 110, 08 KTM 144, 04 Suzuki LT-Z400, 03 Gas Gas EC, 300,97 Honda CR144, 96 Husky Boy 50, 88 Husky 400WR, 86 Honda CR125R, 80 Can-Am MX6 400, 75 Husky 360CR, 75 Husky 175CC, 73 Penton Jackpiner 175, 72 Husky 250CR, 72 Husky 125, 72 Rickman-Zundapp 125, (2) 71 Bultaco Pursang Mk

Offline mj4trax

  • Junior
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • more than 2 strokes is playing with yourself
    • View Profile
OSET 20.0
« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2013, 07:54:39 PM »
I'd like to hear more about it after you get some more time with the 20.0.  I know there are lots of people out there modifying them and there are some kits to go higher tech with the batteries where you can get better life and lose 10-20 lbs from the bike...  just expensive. 

I recently bought my 3 yr old daughter an OSET 12.5 and it's a great little bike, though she doesn't have the nerve for it yet.  I'm hoping she takes to it next summer as I'd like for her to progress to the 16.0 and eventually the 20.0. 

 
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 04:00:00 PM by ' »
2003 RM250
2004 RM250
2001 yz125
1986 trx310R
1989 trx250R

Offline SachsGS

  • Professional
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
    • View Profile
OSET 20.0
« Reply #2 on: October 02, 2013, 03:40:29 PM »
How reliable are the electric bikes?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 04:00:00 PM by ' »

Offline VintageBlueSmoke

  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 157
    • View Profile
OSET 20.0
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2013, 10:00:24 AM »
I've had the 12.5 for almost a year. I didn't follow the directions with the charger and had one fail. I contacted OSET and they sent me 2...free. They also said I could charge the batteries with a car trickle charger, though I guess that is not the best way since these prefer pulse charging (I don't know what I am talking about - I just read it). The only other thing is the rear tire is bald partly because I have training wheels on it and he refuses to try and balance but mostly it is because he likes pulling up to the wall and doing burn outs, leaving small piles of black rubber and tire marks on the walls.

No problems with the 20.0 yet. It is much more complex, both electronicly and with the suspension but I have limited time on it due to back and shoulder problems. They are so bad I have missed 2 regional MX's. My KTM is down but I can fill in on one of the vintage bikes. I have not received the parts from Cycleplayground (thanks US MAIL) and I usually ride hurt but 2 injuries are too much to deal with. I am just resting. I don't even go to the garage for fear of wanting to ride!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 04:00:00 PM by ' »
08 Speed Bird Quad 110, 08 KTM 144, 04 Suzuki LT-Z400, 03 Gas Gas EC, 300,97 Honda CR144, 96 Husky Boy 50, 88 Husky 400WR, 86 Honda CR125R, 80 Can-Am MX6 400, 75 Husky 360CR, 75 Husky 175CC, 73 Penton Jackpiner 175, 72 Husky 250CR, 72 Husky 125, 72 Rickman-Zundapp 125, (2) 71 Bultaco Pursang Mk

Offline Stusmoke

  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
OSET 20.0
« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2013, 10:40:38 AM »
The future is an exciting place. Not punchy, hard hitting, awesome smelling lightweight kind of exciting but still exciting. And although I hate to rekindle the fire, it occured to me that if the vast majority of gasoline consumption, which I'm pretty sure would be transport, what happens to racing? I've not seen statistics but I would think that racing on a global scale would pale in terms of gas consumption to transport. Maybe the ICE, regardless of stroke, could continue on? For good or ill.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 04:00:00 PM by ' »

Offline Boogsy

  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 239
    • View Profile
OSET 20.0
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2013, 10:56:07 AM »
sucks to the electric bicycle.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 04:00:00 PM by ' »

Offline VintageBlueSmoke

  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 157
    • View Profile
OSET 20.0
« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2013, 11:04:24 AM »
2 things Stu:

First, although I believe regular motorcycles 'could' be lighter (as the new KTM free ride shows), the electric bikes I've dealt with are all almost HALF the weight of the their ICE counterparts. Electric motors and batteries are very heavy but are more compact. Where an ICE trials bike has every available mm wedged together, an electric trials bike has free space  like when you put a 50cc engine in a full sized motocrosser! The trend I've seen in the E-bikes uses mostly high-end down-hill bicycle components. E-bikes are smaller overall and lighter. The advantages are obvious.

The second thing regards racing. I don't foresee the end of ICE, however, I think you'll EVENTUALLY see more importance in racing rules geared toward conservation. As I have suggested elsewhere on this site, having a simple fuel allotment (like in NASCAR, F1 and others) is only the beginning. I (if I were king) would open the rules up and put in restrictions based on national goals such as emissions - this season we'll track your total CO emissions via your issued ECU (as in F1) and you can't go over X for the season. You'll see racing managers slowing racers on the track (as you see in F1) managing resources.

I like box rules in racing with simple goals to obtain. If you want wings, ground effects, turbo supercharged nitro burning wankle engines, that is fine - but your simple goals are: 6 engines per season, 3 gearboxes, emissions of X, X gallons of X type fuel or X gallons of Y type fuel and 100 pairs of tires (20 of which are rain). Good luck and see you at the starting line.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 04:00:00 PM by ' »
08 Speed Bird Quad 110, 08 KTM 144, 04 Suzuki LT-Z400, 03 Gas Gas EC, 300,97 Honda CR144, 96 Husky Boy 50, 88 Husky 400WR, 86 Honda CR125R, 80 Can-Am MX6 400, 75 Husky 360CR, 75 Husky 175CC, 73 Penton Jackpiner 175, 72 Husky 250CR, 72 Husky 125, 72 Rickman-Zundapp 125, (2) 71 Bultaco Pursang Mk

Offline Stusmoke

  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
OSET 20.0
« Reply #7 on: October 03, 2013, 11:24:24 AM »
2 things Stu:

First, although I believe regular motorcycles 'could' be lighter (as the new KTM free ride shows), the electric bikes I've dealt with are all almost HALF the weight of the their ICE counterparts. Electric motors and batteries are very heavy but are more compact. Where an ICE trials bike has every available mm wedged together, an electric trials bike has free space  like when you put a 50cc engine in a full sized motocrosser! The trend I've seen in the E-bikes uses mostly high-end down-hill bicycle components. E-bikes are smaller overall and lighter. The advantages are obvious.

The second thing regards racing. I don't foresee the end of ICE, however, I think you'll EVENTUALLY see more importance in racing rules geared toward conservation. As I have suggested elsewhere on this site, having a simple fuel allotment (like in NASCAR, F1 and others) is only the beginning. I (if I were king) would open the rules up and put in restrictions based on national goals such as emissions - this season we'll track your total CO emissions via your issued ECU (as in F1) and you can't go over X for the season. You'll see racing managers slowing racers on the track (as you see in F1) managing resources.

I like box rules in racing with simple goals to obtain. If you want wings, ground effects, turbo supercharged nitro burning wankle engines, that is fine - but your simple goals are: 6 engines per season, 3 gearboxes, emissions of X, X gallons of X type fuel or X gallons of Y type fuel and 100 pairs of tires (20 of which are rain). Good luck and see you at the starting line.


Wow I had no idea the F1 restrictions were that comprehensive. I think, most especially in the 250F class, motocross needs to see engine restrictions. Factory teams get the new bike, punch the limiter out to god knows how high, go in the back and run enough numbers to know exactly how much power they can squeeze out of their motors for 2-3 hours of running time before they become unreliable. Now I know privateers aren't supposed to stand a chance, and I know they did the exact same thing when two strokes ruled the roost, but its just too expensive. High compression pistons, race gas, ultra high limiters, works con rods and crankshafts, works gear boxes, come on. Its just too much. To a privateer team, racing professional motocross is about promoting your brand right? So you can spend an absolute arse load on the bike and get decent placings, but potentially fold from the expenses. Or you can save money on the motors and place near the back of the pack, which defeats the purpose of racing to begin with. Doesn't make much sense...

And about the weight, I was more saying that I would miss two strokes. And if it came to a time when four stroke was the only possible option, not including where double displacement is in effect, I would miss it too.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 04:00:00 PM by ' »

Offline VintageBlueSmoke

  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 157
    • View Profile
OSET 20.0
« Reply #8 on: October 03, 2013, 04:30:27 PM »

Yeah Stu, F1 rules are so restrictive that they measure the paint thickness to ensure the lightest possible/smallest possible/smoothest possible design. The run a standard ECU (built by McLaren) regardless of engine. They are limited to X number of tires per race but also X number of tires per year to include practice and testing. They also have limits to the number of races per engine and gearbox and if you rent/lease your engine, you are limited to the number of hours you can run each one (including practice/testing)!

I am not saying motocross needs to go that route but we can learn something (constructive) from it (especially since everyone is using Bernie Ecclestone's play book for running a series).

I like 'draconian' rules. It means I can go right up against the line without crossing it - like a side line on a football pitch or tennis court. It is like a physical barrier. 250cc's - not 251cc's - 2-5-0! Unfortunately (just like in soccer and tennis where it is left up to the judge's discretion), current rules are vague and allow "interpretation" (is the ball out if it touches the line or goes over it?). I would do away with many of those vague rules and put enforceable rules that can be measured electronically/mechanically and not "left up to interpretation".

If the sport was deemed "too expensive", there are ways to limit is - just as F1 has done with limiting the number of engines and gearboxes, standard ECU's, single tire manufacture, etc.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 04:00:00 PM by ' »
08 Speed Bird Quad 110, 08 KTM 144, 04 Suzuki LT-Z400, 03 Gas Gas EC, 300,97 Honda CR144, 96 Husky Boy 50, 88 Husky 400WR, 86 Honda CR125R, 80 Can-Am MX6 400, 75 Husky 360CR, 75 Husky 175CC, 73 Penton Jackpiner 175, 72 Husky 250CR, 72 Husky 125, 72 Rickman-Zundapp 125, (2) 71 Bultaco Pursang Mk

Offline Stusmoke

  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
OSET 20.0
« Reply #9 on: October 03, 2013, 10:33:20 PM »

Yeah Stu, F1 rules are so restrictive that they measure the paint thickness to ensure the lightest possible/smallest possible/smoothest possible design. The run a standard ECU (built by McLaren) regardless of engine. They are limited to X number of tires per race but also X number of tires per year to include practice and testing. They also have limits to the number of races per engine and gearbox and if you rent/lease your engine, you are limited to the number of hours you can run each one (including practice/testing)!

I am not saying motocross needs to go that route but we can learn something (constructive) from it (especially since everyone is using Bernie Ecclestone's play book for running a series).

I like 'draconian' rules. It means I can go right up against the line without crossing it - like a side line on a football pitch or tennis court. It is like a physical barrier. 250cc's - not 251cc's - 2-5-0! Unfortunately (just like in soccer and tennis where it is left up to the judge's discretion), current rules are vague and allow "interpretation" (is the ball out if it touches the line or goes over it?). I would do away with many of those vague rules and put enforceable rules that can be measured electronically/mechanically and not "left up to interpretation".

If the sport was deemed "too expensive", there are ways to limit is - just as F1 has done with limiting the number of engines and gearboxes, standard ECU's, single tire manufacture, etc.


I agree. I think at the very least, motocross needs to see a rule for production ECUs to keep the limiter where it was off the factory. About the engines though, how do those things survive for so long at such eye watering RPMs? most of them spend their time in 16-18 thousand, which is 266-300 RPM per SECOND! I can't visualize how fast those poor little pistons must be moving.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 04:00:00 PM by ' »

Offline VintageBlueSmoke

  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 157
    • View Profile
OSET 20.0
« Reply #10 on: October 06, 2013, 10:00:57 AM »
It is crazy but before the rule, F1 engine builders were building engines to last just 5 laps! The current rules dictate the total number of engines per year AND how many races they must go before changing them without penalty. The penalty in motocross would have to be different because if F1 it is determined by starting grid position (-10). Same for gearboxes.

In motocross, about nobody "builds" the engines. They are all box stock factory and are sent to just a handful of "specialty" aftermarket tuners. In F1, there are 4 manufacturers who supply the 11 teams. In theory (by contract) the factory team and the leasing teams have the same engine (except Ferrari which the leased engines are 1 version behind). There is no way to get the engine - it doesn't come in any road car. Even if you buy a couple of year old race car for personal/museum use, you have to rent the engine. The engine comes with engineers and mechanics. The technology is just as secret and just as protected  as any military nuke.

I am not saying that MX should adopt F1 rules directly. It could however use some of the cost cutting enforcements (such as limiting the number of engines and number of races per). It would help MX both the rich and poorer rich riders.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 04:00:00 PM by ' »
08 Speed Bird Quad 110, 08 KTM 144, 04 Suzuki LT-Z400, 03 Gas Gas EC, 300,97 Honda CR144, 96 Husky Boy 50, 88 Husky 400WR, 86 Honda CR125R, 80 Can-Am MX6 400, 75 Husky 360CR, 75 Husky 175CC, 73 Penton Jackpiner 175, 72 Husky 250CR, 72 Husky 125, 72 Rickman-Zundapp 125, (2) 71 Bultaco Pursang Mk

Offline Stusmoke

  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
OSET 20.0
« Reply #11 on: October 06, 2013, 09:31:23 PM »
It is crazy but before the rule, F1 engine builders were building engines to last just 5 laps! The current rules dictate the total number of engines per year AND how many races they must go before changing them without penalty. The penalty in motocross would have to be different because if F1 it is determined by starting grid position (-10). Same for gearboxes.

In motocross, about nobody "builds" the engines. They are all box stock factory and are sent to just a handful of "specialty" aftermarket tuners. In F1, there are 4 manufacturers who supply the 11 teams. In theory (by contract) the factory team and the leasing teams have the same engine (except Ferrari which the leased engines are 1 version behind). There is no way to get the engine - it doesn't come in any road car. Even if you buy a couple of year old race car for personal/museum use, you have to rent the engine. The engine comes with engineers and mechanics. The technology is just as secret and just as protected  as any military nuke.

I am not saying that MX should adopt F1 rules directly. It could however use some of the cost cutting enforcements (such as limiting the number of engines and number of races per). It would help MX both the rich and poorer rich riders.


Thats true. Thanks to the production rule they have some limits on what they can do. Was it Damon Bradshaw that left AMA racing after the production rule was enforced because he had to ride an actual YZ125?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 04:00:00 PM by ' »

Offline VintageBlueSmoke

  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 157
    • View Profile
OSET 20.0
« Reply #12 on: October 07, 2013, 09:29:38 AM »
Bradshaw moved to the big bikes. He just couldn't beat the Factory Hondas. Being 'first loser' (second place) didn't sit well with him and he'd ride (WAY) over his head to compensate...started gettign hurt.

He went on to other things. I saw him at a vintage race a little while back...on a 125...Husqvarna!

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 04:00:00 PM by ' »
08 Speed Bird Quad 110, 08 KTM 144, 04 Suzuki LT-Z400, 03 Gas Gas EC, 300,97 Honda CR144, 96 Husky Boy 50, 88 Husky 400WR, 86 Honda CR125R, 80 Can-Am MX6 400, 75 Husky 360CR, 75 Husky 175CC, 73 Penton Jackpiner 175, 72 Husky 250CR, 72 Husky 125, 72 Rickman-Zundapp 125, (2) 71 Bultaco Pursang Mk

Offline LukeG

  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
OSET 20.0
« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2013, 12:10:03 AM »
Found this good video today giving one a flogging.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 04:00:00 PM by ' »