Beta announces MXGP Team

[redrider144]

6 minutes ago, mxaniac said:

In a nutshell the front end feels planned without effort.  No focusing on the peg, pushing on the bar, making sure my elbow is up, and sitting as far forward as I can before I feel set like other bikes.  It's just instant set, roll it on, and focus on the exit.

What you describe is how my 2006 YZ250 felt when I first got it.  I think the sag was 100mm but that depends how you measure it.  It never put me on the ground though.  I didn't have to do anything to make it turn, it just turned.

I can setup my '17 300XC to turn like that, but its twitchy / nervous / too quick / wants to direct me into the nearest tree.  Still experimenting on that, shock will have a XTrig adjuster when I get it back.

Edited January 5, 2021 by redrider144

[mog]

05 cr125 ,05 yz 125 , 20 TC 250 

My 10 rmz was good but not great 

88 cr125 but with wicked headshake 

 

Worst bike 06 yzf 250 

 

[mxaniac]

17 minutes ago, redrider144 said:

What you describe is how my 2006 YZ250 felt when I first got it.  I think the sag was 100mm but that depends how you measure it.  It never put me on the ground though.  I didn't have to do anything to make it turn, it just turned.

I can setup my '17 300XC to turn like that, but its twitchy / nervous / too quick / wants to direct me into the nearest tree.  Still experimenting on that, shock will have a XTrig adjuster when I get it back.

I always felt the YZ250 was an exact opposite of the 2005+ Honda CR250, and I've ridden them back to back many times.  YZ had great suspension and pulled early down low, decent over-rev.  Pushed in corners and didn't turn so well though.  Honda forks was awful on the stutters, not enough float, and didn't do much down low.  On the other hand by 2005 they came on really hard in the mid range and made great peak power before they fell off pretty sharp.  Lots of people didn't like the motor, but I loved it because the mid was so strong you could short shift it, essentially the usable torque was actually fairly wide.  The YZ feels absolutely anemic in the mid range compared to the Honda.  And of course the Honda turned so well.  Two of my friends from work I rode with every Thursday had the YZ and we'd give each other crap all day.  But after riding the Honda both of them walked away going holy crap that's got a lot of power.

Suzuki from 2001+ was a good bike except it was unreliable until 2004.  Turned great, good torque although not especially fast.  Suspension wasn't up to Yamaha levels either, I think they were the same forks as the 2005 YZ which was as bad as the Honda.  Worse actually, the 2005 YZ would give you arm pump by the time the clutch was all the way out.

[MotorBoatin]

56 minutes ago, redrider144 said:

I'm curious what @MotorBoatin, @lowmass, @mxaniac, and @mog say are the best turning bikes they've owned or ridden, and any insight they could give as to the "why."

My 1992 RM125 was my favorite bike. The engine was decent but the chassis was excellent. I also had a great year on that bike and have no idea why I went back to red afterwards 

Every Suzuki I've ridden since were also great turning bikes with the exception of the yellow KXF 250 I rode. I didn't like that one and my Hondas were good turning bikes but not as good as the RM. My KTM is neutral. It doesn't do anything bad or excel at anything but I'm not on an MX track anymore so it suites me

Edited January 5, 2021 by MotorBoatin

[mog]

The 04 RM 125 didn't turn that great ,on 05 they changed the offset and they were good again

[mxaniac]

An interesting thing on the Maico, besides using a primary driver chain to get more weight towards the front, they had hybrid air / spring forks (line others in the day).  Light springs so it would dive in the turns for cornering, heavily progressive from the air so you wouldn't bottom out.

OK this is a beta thread.  I hope they do well and have a great bike.  I'm happy to see the Japanese stranglehold on the industry end.  It will require passion over accounting.  If anyone from beta is listening, I want a light nimble sharp cornering 2 stroke.  Let's get a 350-400cc one while we're at it.

[lowmass]

the last great turning Honda I owned was back around 1998, BUT if you were not riding with a light grip and body positioned in  the sweet spot  it was a handful on choppy high speed stuff. You cannot coast on a twitchy chassis, its either on or off or the thing wants to wiggle hard.

sense then Ive had 2005, 2007, 2008 Hondas, and rode the so called cab forward designs. none turned as well as the older steel framed bike. Haven't been on the new Hondas

The only other bikes I had that turned similar to the older Honda were Suzuki's  and even older Maico and yes they too were twitchy if you did anything wrong at speed

Today I would say the KTMs are about the best overall combination of good turn and good stability. just a good well balanced set of attributes BUT I do wish it turned just a bit more like the Zuke, just a tinny bit more. I tried playing with SAG and fork height BUT IMO the chassis wants 105 SAG and 3rd line on fork. 

I don't really buy into the ideas that you can make any bike significantly better by jacking up/down the rear or  front. I believe a chassis is a complex combination of a bunch of scary math and there is a fairly narrow sweet spot.

Not saying there isnt room to move on these adjustments to suit conditions/rider BUT simply that the window is rather narrow and the basic trait of any chassis is what it is.

Exactly WHY ?,  as I said its a bunch of complex things working together. Cannot really just tie great turning to one or two details. Sure a steep head angle turns sharper BUT there is sooo much more to balancing the whole mess out.

In my own experience with development, when you get close to optimizing any design, Everything affect Everything! its frustrating!!!!

Edited January 5, 2021 by lowmass

[mog]

Different offset clamps might work for you 

[mxaniac]

2 minutes ago, lowmass said:

the last great turning Honda I owned was back around 1998, BUT if you were not riding with a light grip and body positioned in  the sweet spot  it was a handful on choppy high speed stuff. You cannot coast on a twitchy chassis, its either on or off or the thing wants to wiggle hard.

sense then Ive had 2005, 2007, 2008 Hondas, and rode the so called cab forward designs. none turned as well as the older steel framed bike. Haven't been on the new Hondas

The only other bikes I had that turned similar to the older Honda were Suzuki's  and even older Maico and yes they too were twitchy if you did anything wrong at speed

Today I would say the KTMs are about the best overall combination of good turn and good stability. just a good well balanced set of attributes BUT I do wish it turned just a bit more like the Zuke, just a tinny bit more. I tried playing with SAG and fork height BUT IMO the chassis wants 105 SAG and 3rd line on fork. 

I don't really buy into the ideas that you can make any bike significantly better by jacking up/down the rear or  front. I believe a chassis is a complex combination of a bunch of scary math and there is a fairly narrow sweet spot.

Not saying there isnt room to move on these adjustments to suit conditions/rider BUT simply that the window is rather narrow and the basic trait of any chassis is what it is.

Exactly WHY ?,  as I said its a bunch of complex things working together. Cannot really just tie great turning to one or two details. Sure a steep head angle turns sharper BUT there is sooo much more to balancing the whole mess out.

In my own experience with development, when you get close to optimizing any design, Everything affect Everything! its frustrating!!!!

I didn't like the 450F cornering until 2013, but I think the gen 3 frame with the 2T engine it was designed for was golden around 05.  

[lowmass]

11 minutes ago, mog said:

Different offset clamps might work for you 

hmmm what u recommend?. and what is stock btw (2018 sxf 450)?>

 

10 minutes ago, mxaniac said:

I didn't like the 450F cornering until 2013, but I think the gen 3 frame with the 2T engine it was designed for was golden around 05.  

yea I raced the 2005 250 2T. It was pretty good, better than the 2007 4T for sure . Not as slice and dice as the 98 BUT it didn't shake ya loose either ha

Edited January 5, 2021 by lowmass

[mxaniac]

53 minutes ago, MotorBoatin said:

My 1992 RM125 was my favorite bike. The engine was decent but the chassis was excellent. I also had a great year on that bike and have no idea why I went back to red afterwards 

Every Suzuki I've ridden since were also great turning bikes with the exception of the yellow KXF 250 I rode. I didn't like that one and my Hondas were good turning bikes but not as good as the RM. My KTM is neutral. It doesn't do anything bad or excel at anything but I'm not on an MX track anymore so it suites me

After a long hiatus I got back into riding in 2001 by buying a 92 RM250.  I kept blowing 3rd gear, crank seals, and breaking the frame.  I finally resolved the frame issues by getting the entire lower cradle cherry red and letting it slowly cool.  It probably took an entire bottle of acetylene!  I bought a brand new 2001 RM250 in 2002 (might have actually been 2003) and it was much much better but I went through 3rd gear twice.  I bought a 2004 Honda then a 2005.  It took many years before I ever saw the inside of the Hondas.  In fact it took a really muddy night race under the lights with a local TV crew present before I finally did a 5 year old Honda transmission in.  We were digging a trench around this one corner so deep I kept catching the shifter and knocking the bike out of gear every lap but it was too slick to go anywhere else.  Eventually it got stuck in 3rd gear.  It was worth it though, I won in the deep mud on a 2-stroke stuck in 3rd gear against a field of 4 strokes.

[mxaniac]

7 minutes ago, lowmass said:

hmmm what u recommend?. and what is stock btw?>

 

yea I raced the 2005 2T. It was pretty good, better than the 2007 4T for sure . Not as slice and dice as the 98 BUT it didn't shake ya loose either ha

I didn't own any Hondas between the 88 and the 04, I rode a few but didn't own any.  My impression was they were closer to the oh crap I $#!+ my pants Maico handling when your forks leaked out all the air.  My god those things could shake violently.

I've been wanting to try a different offset on my TC250.  Many would argue a larger offset would make it turn better but my experience with my KX was a smaller offset made it more like Honda Maico Suzuki cornering.  Not the same of course, but I could tolerate my KX much better after a shorter triple clamp offset and a rear link change.

[lowmass]

I had similar experiences with Zuks and older Hondas

In fact I actually stopped racing Suzukis simply because they were always breaking, always

Once I drained the oil out of my 1998 Honda and forgot to put any in. About 30 min into a hard ride I kept smelling hot paint smell (engine was painted black). I thought for sure it was toast. Poured in the oil and just kept going. My newer "Hondas" (2007-8 450) no so much. They get old fast 

[MotorBoatin]

5 minutes ago, mxaniac said:

After a long hiatus I got back into riding in 2001 by buying a 92 RM250.  I kept blowing 3rd gear, crank seals, and breaking the frame.  I finally resolved the frame issues by getting the entire lower cradle cherry red and letting it slowly cool.  It probably took an entire bottle of acetylene!  I bought a brand new 2001 RM250 in 2002 (might have actually been 2003) and it was much much better but I went through 3rd gear twice.  I bought a 2004 Honda then a 2005.  It took many years before I ever saw the inside of the Hondas.  In fact it took a really muddy night race under the lights with a local TV crew present before I finally did a 5 year old Honda transmission in.  We were digging a trench around this one corner so deep I kept catching the shifter and knocking the bike out of gear every lap but it was too slick to go anywhere else.  Eventually it got stuck in 3rd gear.  It was worth it though, I won in the deep mud on a 2-stroke stuck in 3rd gear against a field of 4 strokes.

I now Suzuki quality is a little sketchy but they make a great turning bike

The steel frames on older RMs are always pitted with rust. They start to rust as soon as the humidity goes up with paint still on the frame. I don't see other bikes doing that  

[mog]

On offsets KTM ,2014  they went from 24 mm offset to 22? You could try 20 if those numbers are correct 

Edited January 5, 2021 by mog

[lowmass]

yes the old Maico brown streak, I think Honda copied 

[mxaniac]

2 minutes ago, mog said:

On offsets KTM ,2014  they went from 24 mm offset to 22? You could try 20 if those numbers are correct 

Didn't they do an axle size change somewhere that affected the clamps?

[lowmass]

hmm yea my friends 2014 350 seems like it has a larger diam axil?

[mog]

9 minutes ago, mxaniac said:

Didn't they do an axle size change somewhere that affected the clamps?

Yes  the clamps never changed ,the axle did the work 

Edited January 5, 2021 by mog

[redrider144]

1 hour ago, lowmass said:

I don't really buy into the ideas that you can make any bike significantly better by jacking up/down the rear or  front. I believe a chassis is a complex combination of a bunch of scary math and there is a fairly narrow sweet spot.

Not saying there isnt room to move on these adjustments to suit conditions/rider BUT simply that the window is rather narrow and the basic trait of any chassis is what it is.

Yes.  But what I was thinking was, there might be people that never found the sweet spot with a certain bike, and they think it doesn't handle well because they never dialed it in.  Not saying any of you fit that obviously.