Jump to content
slowgs2001

Anderson! What A Fluke!

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, KTMRider4Life said:

Have you ever ridden a KTM 300? At your size though a 200 would kick ass.

200 would be fun kind of like my yz250f but I would get bored with it.  A 300 would have a little more gnarl grunt I think. @redrider144 says he has pretty good grunt with his and our experiences with the 350 were similar.

Maybe I can take one for a ride some family friends up in NH have one I can probably use for a few hours. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Chaconne said:

200 would be fun kind of like my yz250f but I would get bored with it.  A 300 would have a little more gnarl grunt I think. @redrider144 says he has pretty good grunt with his and our experiences with the 350 were similar.

Maybe I can take one for a ride some family friends up in NH have one I can probably use for a few hours. 

you'd be faster on a 200 than anything else I'd bet.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, yzernie said:

What's a "looser"?

She  > brazilian-prostitutes-564x400.jpg

Is looser than she is > susan-miller-former-minnesota-amish.jpg

Edited by jcm3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KTMRider4Life said:

you'd be faster on a 200 than anything else I'd bet.  

Maybe. But faster in the rooty, rocky, rutted, mud lubed, hilly, Northeast swamp gnarl sometimes is the art of slower. There is no good terrain out here.

It is often the right use of smooth lugging power that gets you by and faster can sometimes make it worse unless you are Shane or something.

And check out his too fast crash on the 2nd Dirtwise DVD coming down a east coast slimy muddy hill covered with leaves right into a tree --he even hurts his knee in that shot that is the shit have to ride on out here. It ain't Cali.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Chaconne said:

Maybe. But faster in the rooty, rocky, rutted, mud lubed, hilly, Northeast swamp gnarl sometimes is the art of slower. There is no good terrain out here.

It is often the right use of smooth lugging power that gets you by and faster can sometimes make it worse unless you are Shane or something.

And check out his too fast crash on the 2nd Dirtwise DVD coming down a east coast slimy muddy hill covered with leaves right into a tree --he even hurts his knee in that shot that is the shit have to ride on out here. It ain't Cali.

if it's all that I don't see how the hell a bike built for the desert is what you want.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KTMRider4Life said:

if it's all that I don't see how the hell a bike built for the desert is what you want.   

Yeah that's where the KTM two strokes differ from their four stroke cousins.

A 300 XC resists stalling equally well as a 300 XC-W.  It's the same engine, only difference is 1st and 2nd gear and only slightly.  I feel like the 300 XC is perfect in gnar.

But a 350 XC-F engine is very very different from a 350 XCF-W.

The 350 XC-F engine is based on the SX-F.

The 350 XCF-W engine is based on the EXC-F.

And the two 350 engines share zero parts from what I remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, redrider144 said:

Yeah that's where the KTM two strokes differ from their four stroke cousins.

A 300 XC resists stalling equally well as a 300 XC-W.  It's the same engine, only difference is 1st and 2nd gear and only slightly.  I feel like the 300 XC is perfect in gnar.

But a 350 XC-F engine is very very different from a 350 XCF-W.

The 350 XC-F engine is based on the SX-F.

The 350 XCF-W engine is based on the EXC-F.

And the two 350 engines share zero parts from what I remember.

For you so called backwoods super gnar gnar riders who say a 4 stroke works well in the sloppy muddy super steep, log hoppin terrain tell me how the weight of a machine like a WR450 isn't a huge disadvantage. Going down a super sloppy hill in the mud on a big heavy bike makes me shiver.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KTMRider4Life said:

For you so called backwoods super gnar gnar riders who say a 4 stroke works well in the sloppy muddy super steep, log hoppin terrain tell me how the weight of a machine like a WR450 isn't a huge disadvantage. Going down a super sloppy hill in the mud on a big heavy bike makes me shiver.

I notice how light my 300 XC is.  Especially if I have to manhandle it.  I think the 'heavy 4T swingers' are in denial.  Or else they're all built like Brock Lesnar.  I'm not.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, redrider144 said:

I notice how light my 300 XC is.  Especially if I have to manhandle it.  I think the 'heavy 4T swingers' are in denial.  Or else they're all built like Brock Lesnar.  I'm not.  

Chaconne is built like Rhonda Rousey NOT on Aldon's juice and only riding a bicycle.... Riding a WR450 in steep rocky rooty mud infested terrain. If anyone needs a KTM 200 it's Chaconne...  

Edited by KTMRider4Life
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KTMRider4Life said:

Chaconne is built like Rhonda Rousey NOT on Aldon's juice.... Riding a WR450 in steep rocky rooty mud infested terrain 

@Chaconne is a runner though right?  He might have the endurance to deal with a heavy bike....but why would you want to???

He should ride a '17 or newer 250 / 300 XC or XC-W if he can find one to try out.  It will feel like a mountain bike compared to the WR he's on currently.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, redrider144 said:

@Chaconne is a runner though right?  He might have the endurance to deal with a heavy bike....but why would you want to???

He should ride a '17 or newer 250 / 300 XC or XC-W if he can find one to try out.  It will feel like a mountain bike compared to the WR he's on currently.    

Marothoner, tons of endurance, 130lbs soaking wet. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KTMRider4Life said:

Marothoner, tons of endurance, 130lbs soaking wet. 

Damn, 130?  That WR doesn't even know he's there, but his endurance is what keeps him from getting worked by it.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, redrider144 said:

Damn, 130?  That WR doesn't even know he's there, but his endurance is what keeps him from getting worked by it.  

I'll let him say for sure, but he's a small lightweight guy. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KTMRider4Life said:

I'll let him say for sure, but he's a small lightweight guy. 

I kinda don't get the 150 from KTM.  I think they should bring back the old 200, totally based on the 125, cases, frame, trans, everything.

But yeah I'd say 200 / 250 / 300 XC or XC-W for @Chaconne.

Edited by redrider144
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, redrider144 said:

I kinda don't get the 150 from KTM.  I think they should bring back the old 200, totally based on the 125, cases, frame, trans, everything.

But yeah I'd say 200 / 250 / 300 XC or XC-W for @Chaconne.

I think 125/150 market has something to do with euro standards and the 200 got dropped because it didn't fit the standards and they cold buld a 125/150 that used a common lower end like the 250/300.  Back in the good old days the 250 and 300 didn't share the same stroke and there's some that believe that's a compromise one way or the other....  Certainly easier from a production stand point but better if you weren't counting pennies?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KTMRider4Life said:

I think 125/150 market has something to do with euro standards and the 200 got dropped because it didn't fit the standards and they cold buld a 125/150 that used a common lower end like the 250/300.  Back in the good old days the 250 and 300 didn't share the same stroke and there's some that believe that's a compromise one way or the other....  Certainly easier from a production stand point but better if you weren't counting pennies?

Interesting....I didn't know the old school 300 had a longer stroke.  I'll bet it was more powerful than today's.  cc for cc, a two stroke typically gains more power from stroke than bore.  

That makes sense now why I've read claims that older 300s were on the edge of being too much power.  I didn't understand why, I was asking people if the head was radically different.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, redrider144 said:

Interesting....I didn't know the old school 300 had a longer stroke.  I'll bet it was more powerful than today's.  cc for cc, a two stroke typically gains more power from stroke than bore.  

That makes sense now why I've read claims that older 300s were on the edge of being too much power.  I didn't understand why, I was asking people if the head was radically different.  

Early model 300's responded really well to squish band mods.it had nothing to do with compression changes as most tuers cc'd the heads and relieved the dome when they modded the heads. 

but yes i do believe that KTM running the same lower end 250/300 was a strategic change for several reasons. Made it easy to sell kits or for people to swap 250/300 but at the same time if you were trying to build the best 250 and 300 would the same stroke be ideal? probably not.

On another note I remember now the AMA made it a rule that for 144's to compete in the 125/250stroker class the 144 had to share the stroke with the 125.....  

 

The first KTM 144's did not share the stroke, they were also ticking time bombs.   The ignition and cylinder had to be revised .

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Reply with:


×