ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Bikes > Orange Crush
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

View Results: Would you buy a 370 lbs wet, 80-90 HP, 700-800cc twin, priced between 690 and 990?
Tomorrow, bring it on! 425 87.99%
Too small, prefer the exisiting 990 and upcoming 1190. 26 5.38%
Too big, prefer a single. 26 5.38%
Not interested in a KTM. 6 1.24%
Voters: 483. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-30-2012, 07:44 AM   #91
sailah
Lampin' it
 
sailah's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Turning expensive metal into scrap
Oddometer: 5,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chadx View Post
So it is the various Kawasaki Versys/Ninja 650 builds to which you refer? I've followed several of those with interest. I like to tinker, but haven't been willing to bite off that much of a project.

Yeah building is not easy or cheap as I have found out. I had never built a bike before and learned a lot of hard lessons about weight, tools and abilities. My first bike I was going to convert was a Ninja 650 but turned out the bike I bought was stolen so that put a damper on my plans, hence the FZ1 build.

I built another which I am finishing up right now.

Lukas started me thinking about the 650 engine again in the Inmate Build thread. It really does seem to hit every point we would want. yes, it might be a little wide but the weight is good.

Keeping the weight down is a tough chore, believe me, I tried every avenue I could think of on the CBR build. Aluminum subframe which doubles as a fuel tank, YZ450 seat, no fairing, no cush drive. I think 350 is achievable but you'd need to really keep an eye on things. I have zero provisions for a passenger on either of my bikes

I think if anyone could do it it would be KTM, but going to be tough to convince them to build.

I talked at length with the president of Husqvarna on the phone a week ago and asked him this exact question.

"any chance you guys would throw top flight components at a lightweight ADV tourer? There's lots of guys wanting one"

He basically said that's why they came out with the 650 Terra, but agreed it was not going to be the bike I was asking for. He compared bikes to Jeeps, there's the Rubicon and the Grand Cherokee. The 650 is a Jeep Liberty and it's also too heavy, not enough suspension.
__________________
We're not out here to rough it. We're here to smooth it . Things are rough enough in town.

Nessmuk
sailah is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 12:04 PM   #92
Bubba Bauer
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Bubba Bauer's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2011
Location: Lower Mitcham SA
Oddometer: 154
Talking I want one too!!!

Why 700-800cc? Just because the other manufacturers have this engine displacement? I would be extremely happy with an engine with similar figures to the er6n or the Honda nc700 smaller size less weight less fuel consumption smaller cooling smaller exhaust smaller govco fees/insurances etc.

They easily punt out 70HP that has to be enough for everything if a 40HP dr650 is adequate for most adventures.
They can be dead reliable just look at all the cb500-s and Deauvilles all the London couriers are/were using.

If you got less weight u need smaller brakes less oil less wear and tear etc. so price and ownership costs are down too. It adds up... It would never happen, but it would be nice perfect for commuting, weekends, just going somewhere...

Like a 650cc 70 degree parallel twin Husaberg unique nimble a final for KTM to kill off that superb engine...

__________________
Bubba Bauer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 01:36 PM   #93
Idle
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jun 2011
Location: Northern California
Oddometer: 578
What, like this?

http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=322667
Idle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 08:32 PM   #94
Nowwhat
I'll Go Second...
 
Nowwhat's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: On the Ground Laughing
Oddometer: 4,429
950SE set up as an "adventure" bike...



Weighs 450 lbs wet....

So all wishing and hoping etc etc aside.....How do you shave 80lbs....and still have an "adventure" bike?

The SE already has the 2-1 with a short Ti pipe..single 320 rotor.....Shorai battery etc...still 450 lbs....

80 lbs....ready set go....
__________________
'14 1190R...Adventure Beast
'13 690 Quest...Rally Beast
950SE......Desert Beast
'Berg 570..Trail Beast
Nowwhat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 09:47 PM   #95
cyborg
Potius Sero Quam Numquam
 
cyborg's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Location: Pacific NorthWet
Oddometer: 4,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowwhat View Post
950SE set up as an "adventure" bike...

Weighs 450 lbs wet....

So all wishing and hoping etc etc aside.....How do you shave 80lbs....and still have an "adventure" bike?

The SE already has the 2-1 with a short Ti pipe..single 320 rotor.....Shorai battery etc...still 450 lbs....

80 lbs....ready set go....
The LC8 engine is about 135lbs, and smaller twin could shave off weight there. I wonder what the weight difference is between the 690 trellis frame and the 990 trellis frame?

I think the main reason I would like a twin over a single, even with the added complexity, is for the SMOOTHness. If you put in serious miles and not just "ride1hr/stop-n-strut for 30min/ride 1hr/repeat" Harley weekend warrior type riding, a smoother engine makes a HUGE difference.
cyborg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 09:55 PM   #96
Fishfund
Studly Adventurer
 
Fishfund's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: Lansing, MI
Oddometer: 562
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMC1 View Post
I'd rather have a 690 Enduro than something another 50lbs heavier.

I don't find the 690 to be that buzzy as has been mentioned by 1 or 2 guys, but I do agree that the gearing is either good for pavement or good for dirt, not both.

I wonder if KTM has ever though about a dual range transmission like the old Honda's from like 30 year ago?

That seems like THE solution. 65 horsepower, 315lbs, $10k and boooyahhhh!
My little 2 cents.

I would have loved my 690 if only it ONE Didn't break down so much and TWO got better fuel mileage. I was content with everything else about the bike. If a 700-800 twin could fix those two issues for me, I would be quite happy, but I don't want anything heavier than the current 690. Being light and nimble was the best part of that bike.

I realize that MPG isn't any ones concerns but for me it is really frustrating when your riding partner on a F800GS uses 1/3 less gas. That really adds up on RTW type trips and in Norway when fuel touches $20 a gallon.

I really don't want to settle for a F800GS, but for RTW guys, fuel economy should be a consideration.
Fishfund is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 10:41 PM   #97
crofrog
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: Annapolis Maryland
Oddometer: 1,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishfund View Post
My little 2 cents.

I would have loved my 690 if only it ONE Didn't break down so much
You took a basically unknown used bike slapped a bunch of mods on it and took it to Africa which is totally awesome. From what I remember from the report you only really had 2 problems right? Fuel pump twice and the voltage regulator? You did allot of beating around the bush to find the issue though because the computer wasn't exceedingly helpful in telling you what the problem was.

Quote:
and TWO got better fuel mileage. I was content with everything else about the bike. If a 700-800 twin could fix those two issues for me, I would be quite happy, but I don't want anything heavier than the current 690. Being light and nimble was the best part of that bike.
What type of mileage did you get, how did it change once you took the akrapovic map off?

Quote:
I realize that MPG isn't any ones concerns but for me it is really frustrating when your riding partner on a F800GS uses 1/3 less gas. That really adds up on RTW type trips and in Norway when fuel touches $20 a gallon.
What type of mileage was Nick getting? From what I've read the F800's get about 50ish did you see that real world?

crofrog screwed with this post 10-30-2012 at 10:54 PM
crofrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2012, 05:07 AM   #98
LukasM OP
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: On a RTW ride - currently Central Asia
Oddometer: 5,330
Interesting results in the poll so far, seems like the vast majority of people feel that this would be the ideal size, and then you've got an equal amount of "outliers" that want either bigger or smaller.


Nowwhat,

Very nice setup you got there on your SE, it probably comes closest to what I am envisioning from the currently available choices on the market.

I am getting 404 lbs wet no fuel for an SE with a 2-into-1 ti pipe conversion, how much weight does your fairing add? Or did you measure it full of fuel and with bash plate, hand guards, shark fin, stabilizer, frame guards, axle slider etc that you would have to add to any other bike weight as well?

The additional weight savings should come from 10 years advance in manufacturing and design, as well as the smaller displacement and lower stress on the components. If they manage to save 5.5 lbs from the 2011 530 (510cc) engine to the 2012 500 (510cc) engine, the savings going from the 2003 DOHC 950cc to a 2013 700cc-800cc (SOHC?) should hopefully be around 20 lbs. Then downsize the frame and swingarm, get rid of the front tank and subframe and replace them with a plastic underseat tank subframe and you should hopefully save another 20-30 lbs. You will also have to carry a lot less fuel, if you compare a F800GS and your SE with a modern FI system and engine design a 30% reduction is easily possible.

50 lbs is not quite as dramatic in savings but surely noticeable (fuel tank and how the weight is carried is another improvement), and your SE is already completely optimized compared to a standard Adventure, where the difference would be much greater.

I'd be willing to make the trade of a bit less power for a bit less weight and better economy, taming down the beast so to say, and making it more manageable for mere mortal riders like myself.
__________________
RTW trip blog: https://www.facebook.com/AroundTheWorldWithLukasM

LukasM screwed with this post 10-31-2012 at 05:13 AM
LukasM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2012, 05:30 AM   #99
Bubba Bauer
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Bubba Bauer's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2011
Location: Lower Mitcham SA
Oddometer: 154
Thumb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idle View Post


are they 2 fe400 engines bolted together? Looks absulutely savage probably not the smoothest of engines.

But this thing can`t possibly weigh more than 300-350lbs and if you have 2 instead of 4 engine cases 2 instead of 4 exhausts, FI, ditch the jackshaft etc. you will save even more, but still whoever did it was an awesome work...
__________________
Bubba Bauer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2012, 08:34 AM   #100
sailah
Lampin' it
 
sailah's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Turning expensive metal into scrap
Oddometer: 5,258
Like Lukas said, swapping the tank for a lighter plastic tank under the seat, slimming down the trellis frame, replacing the swingarm (I have both a 950 and RFS swingarm on my project bikes and the RFS is WAY lighter) running a standard PDS shock instead of the 950 with preload, smaller rims, spokes and hubs, lighter braking components, minimal fairing and bodywork (make the tank the rear fairing, carbon fiber skidplate, exhaust would have to be done by consumer to a single carbon can due to EPA, lighter motor.

I still don't see how you could get that to 350 though. with all the stuff guys want on their ADV bikes. Possible but I think it would be a real stretch.

Is it that much different from the 950SE to warrant a new bike and engine? Probably not with the 690 in there.
__________________
We're not out here to rough it. We're here to smooth it . Things are rough enough in town.

Nessmuk
sailah is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2012, 08:55 AM   #101
Bubba Bauer
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Bubba Bauer's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2011
Location: Lower Mitcham SA
Oddometer: 154
Pissed its gonna be long

Sorry this is going to be long I`m really interested in the why-s and why not-s of this topic...

I have to agree with Lukas, and I hope somewhere somebody will be VERY convincing explaining why we need a bike like this to the bosses of a motorcycle manufacturer. For me a 1000cc 100HP DS bike is just too big and pointless.

Just look at what Rally racers say about smaller Dakar bikes

http://www.motorcycledaily.com/2011/...rican-victory/

"The new bikes are significantly lighter than the 650s and not much slower. “It is very comfortable to ride,” said Despres about his new KTM 450 Rally, “and very reliable and only an idiot never changes his mind."

So if you have a big difference between 450-s and 690-s there will be an even bigger difference between a 1200cc and 600-700cc bike.

If I stand next to any of the KTM twins my first impression is how HUGE they are. Of course they are V-twin that makes them as long as an oil tanker, and because u got 100HP to deal with u need longer, wider stronger=heavier swingarm, bigger wheels, swingarm pivot bolt, bearings bigger nuts and screws, stronger frame, cause it needs to carry more fuel it needs even more bracing etc. cause with each gram of added weight it needs heavier forks and shocks bigger breaks which pushes weight further, because it`s big as a barn u need 1 square mile of plastic to cover it with its own heavy bracketry. I think KTM did a really good job having them around 220kg-s look at the super ten 10-20HP more and 40kg-s heavier.

What do I mostly use my bike?
Commuting. A 990 would disappear sharpish in my dr650-s mirror in the morning rush hour.
Weekend twisties dirt tracks forest rides. The 2 bikes will be the same or at least I would be close.
Long transport sections highways straight open roads which I`m trying to avoid anyways the 990 would slaughter the DR, but if you want to go the distance for how long?

Look up motorbikin coast to coast race as an example 2008 2 950SE DNF cause they used up their tires and fuel halfway 2010 2 DR-s 4 and a half day 2012 Honda CT110P postie scooters less than 6 days Ok that`s extreme, but they did it!!!!! And before the orange crush team goes rabid I`m not saying they are bad or anything or the DR is the best DS bike ever just trying to show that 100HP and 1000cc is for me is too much and unjustified a 110cc bike hasn`t got the speed and power while an outdated old mild steel bike somehow had the balance to do 5000km-s in 5 days on all sorts of roads and terrains.

And before someone comes up with a “you have to have different bikes for different things” excuse... Why? A 12000-20000AUD bike which should be a jack of all trades should be OK for ALL of my biking needs. Look at the el cheapo shit heap old fat bastard DR. Can I take it down to a SM track or a light endure section? Can I commute with it every day? Can I throw it around in twisties, dirttracks? Can I do a lap `round the paddock? With some compromises on all fields, but definitely doable, yes you can do the same on a 990, but you don`t NEED a 990 to do it and I think you compromise more...

I just want a DR which is a bit lighter smoother better suspended about 60HP and because the Japanese manufacturers won`t make it IMHO someone in Europe should. Ok I should put in dual cylinder cause the 690 covers most of the "requisites".

Honda Transalp? That bike pisses me off no end. How the hell could it be 40kg-s heavier than the DR and even shittier suspension that`s an "achievement" in itself... In that bike I can see some corporate accountant wearing his cornflower blue tie saying that Yamaha/BMW sold such and such units of Tenere/800GS we should build a SIMILAR bike and some engineer says, but we can make a bike which is twice as good and the accountant tells him don`t bother we won`t sell twice as much so make a cheap bike with the same specs no fuck off to your hole and get crackin` make it cheap damn the pride we got some shareholders to pay.
Where are the GPZ 600-s which created the supersport class, the first GSXR-s or Fireblades or the first gen R1 the NR750, FZ750 I can keep on going, which were so much better than the rest, that it took the rivals 2-3 bike generations to catch up. They were unique and blown the competition away.

Kawasaki didn`t put the ER engine into a DS frame just look at how many people begging for it, the SV is still basically a street bike and the Tenere is a low quality components bike with a rip off price tag.

Japan builds similar bikes and not groundbreaking ones which is a pity... At least KTM/Husaberg is innovative and trying something, I respect that and for a small barn manufacturer (compared to the big 4) their bikes are exceptional.

Ok **** rant over I`ll shut up I promise.
__________________
Bubba Bauer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2012, 12:30 PM   #102
geometrician
let's keep going...
 
geometrician's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2008
Location: West-By-God Virginia
Oddometer: 1,022
Wicked An Even Longer One...

Quote:
Originally Posted by LukasM View Post
Many of the "old school" 950/990 owners are claiming that this would be a useless exercise as you would just give up a lot of horsepower for only a couple of lbs of weight loss.

I think with some modern and creative engineering a 80-90 HP 700-800cc twin with 360-380lbs (wet no fuel) is a realistic goal, and I'd buy one tomorrow.
so you think there is 120~140lbs to lose? The 2012 Dakar on the showroom weighed 499.7lbs naked- no crash bars, racks, luggage, no battery, <1/2 gallon fuel in it when we put it on state-certified digital scales made for weighing vehicles...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navin View Post
Why bother making it a 700-800? The LC-8 engine as a 950 could be reduced by 20 lbs thru a SOHC conversion and better casting tech that KTM now uses. Add a 2-1 stock exhaust, a plastic subframe/fuel tank and keep it SKINNY!!!

No reason they couldn't build a 90 HP version that gets far better MPG, need to carry less fuel for the same range
SOHC makes engines taller. The heads on a 690 are so tall that in a V-twin arrangement it would make the engine splay out futher, affecting steering head & seat /fuel/etc location. It's already tight pulling the valve covers off a 690E, nevermind a 690SM/Duke. SOHC have more mechanical parts, wear points & tolerances that open up as they run... and they do- all the 690's I have done valve clearance checks on have wear on the cams & rocker arms, far worse than any of the DOHC LC8's.

Where do you come up with "20lbs" savings? Guesstimating? The difference in the amount of metal is negligible. Combustion chamber design (which is limited with SOHC as is spark plug location) & valve timing dictate fuel consumption so I don't know how/where/what "far better MPG" comes from with 20% less displacement and the same ratio of power to displacement...

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunnerbuck View Post
Aprilia brought out a very lightweight V-twin in the RX a few years back that was a bit of leading edge... The problem is the engine proved unreliable as they were sucking too much power out of it... Drop the power by 20% and it is likely the reliability of that platform would go up while still providing plenty of punch...
Agreed. The Aprilia makes it power through spinning the living shit out of the motor- Less RPMs = Less Power... see below

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunnerbuck View Post
KTM or somebody should get there act together and create a 700-750 cc light Adventure
Honda, BMW & Triumph have this market covered- weight notwithstanding. But you can bet they worked on the weight all the time- they DO pay attention to the internet discussions, interview people at rallies, etc to determine what people are wanting/complaining about...

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyborg View Post
Oil cooler would add price, complexity and weight, but always a great option to add longevity to an engine.
+1 (to me) weight worth having

Quote:
Originally Posted by LukasM View Post
The 690 has an internal oil sump and tons of ground clearance, since the V-configuration of the cylinders and the shorter stroke would make a twin less tall you could make the sump bigger without losing any clearance.

And while many people were complaining about the lack of frame tubing below the engine at first, I have not heard of a single broken case. Install a good skid plate that is supported by two beams off the main frame up front and by the frame in the rear and it will be fine.
The 690 has less ground clearance than the 9x0 Adv's and steering lock so narrow you think you're riding a Ducati sometimes

It also holds less than 2quarts of oil!

V-twins aren't THAT much shorter than singles and they dictate frame layout... one could try what Britten did with his V1000 by attaching the steering head directly to the engine.

I have friends/customers that have had problems with the skidplates being offered for the 690 which keeps some of them safe at home- not out riding...

Quote:
Originally Posted by crofrog View Post
If you want a really small light motor with great ground clearance where is the sump going to be? And how much oil is it going to hold? I'd rather not have a 1qt motor like an RFS for a adv bike... Nor would I want to worry about if the motor is running low on oil loosing oil pressure
+1. Also the less oil you have the harder you work it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by LukasM View Post
I would also prefer a semi-dry sump engine
what in the hell is a semi-dry sump? it either is or it isn't- and with any remote oil tank you'd still have the same amount of hoses, check valves, oil tank & location to deal with. So you lose the wet sump simplicity/ground clearance & gain weight...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schannulleke View Post
Take the 690 as a starting point, give it a modern light 790cc V-twin engine with lets say 90hp. Improve/reinforce the 690 frame where needed (my guess is not much reinforcement will be needed). Single exhaust muffler. Subframe rear tank. Make more bike versions from this platform (however all R-verions):
- Enduro: small tank, minimalistic instruments
- Adventure: medium tank, improved instruments, improved passenger comfort, dual front brake discs
- Rally: large tank, improved instruments
- Supermoto: small tank, minimalistic instruments
- Touring: medium tank, improved instruments, improved passenger comfort, dual front brake discs
- Duke:...
- RC:...

Voila, KTM could build 7 motorcycles out of the engineering effort for 1 good lightweight modular platform
Single mufflers aren't going to meet sound/emissions requirements without catalysts at least, which we all hate and throw away due to heat/etc, which make real-world investment in the bike higher.

7 bikes still require 7 engineering efforts (plus they have to work together which adds complexity/cost)... and 7 sets of bodywork & supply problems... etc. I like the idea personally but being in the loop of mechanical engineers/cost analysts I know what they go through...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba Bauer View Post
because it`s big as a barn u need 1 square mile of plastic to cover it with its own heavy bracketry
My fuel tanks bolt to the frame don't yours? The front aluminum bracket is helping holding the weight of the fuel tanks & supporting the entire bike in the event of a tip-over (they built the lower fuel tank guards knowing the impact energy was coming in that direction)

I can't believe 450 singles even made it in to this discussion- . (nevermind a DR) With oil changes & valve clearance checks measured in hours (um, starting at 1 hour!) and piston wear that is atrocious (Vertex data sheet says 18~35hrs depending on use) they don't even come close to our needs. Plus you have to spin the hell out of them to make power. In a rally/race situation these things get components thrown at them all the time and get serviced every night. That doesn't make an Adventure bike

-----

So the crux of the OP's post: producing 90hp out of a 700 (or even 800) means spinning it faster. Torque is the ability to do work, to twist a shaft. Horsepower is a theoretical function of time, torque & RPM's. This is why all torque/horsepower charts cross at 5,252rpm. See here. It's not just engine design- that's why HP increases MORE than torque when modifications are done- there's a limit to the torque you can make given crank weight, rod angle, etc.

Torque is what gets the vehicle moving- and is why Harley-Davidson bikes beat the Japanese four-cylinders at NHRA dragraces every weekend. Your average street HD will beat your sportbike across the intersection and into the next block before you catch him & zoom on to stratospheric top speed (and redline). Horsepower sounds great when you don't know Torque is what we're after. I'd rather have more torque than horsepower on an Adventure bike anyday

Example: early air-cooled Volkswagen's had a engine producing 33HP yet rated at 70 ft/lbs of torque. While a modern sportbike engine might be rated at 150+hp, it has relatively smaller torque numbers- that is because HP is a function of the crank speed. Think a GSXR engine is gonna power your car to the top of a mountain? It ain't- not without an automatic transmission or one hell of a clutch system!

In summary wanting a 700-750cc 90hp bike means you've essentially got the same situation KTM has created with the new "150hp" 1190 Adventure- a bike that require spinning the engine to make its power- which takes away from the Adventure bike utility we're after.

The Soap Box is now up for grabs again...
__________________
Britt
'06 KTM 950 Adv 'S'
'03 KTM 250 EXC
'87 KLR650 - <200K miles "Like the Energizer Bunny, just keeps going & going..."

geometrician screwed with this post 10-31-2012 at 12:35 PM
geometrician is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2012, 01:55 PM   #103
Nowwhat
I'll Go Second...
 
Nowwhat's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: On the Ground Laughing
Oddometer: 4,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by LukasM View Post

Nowwhat,

Very nice setup you got there on your SE, it probably comes closest to what I am envisioning from the currently available choices on the market.

I am getting 404 lbs wet no fuel for an SE with a 2-into-1 ti pipe conversion, how much weight does your fairing add? Or did you measure it full of fuel and with bash plate, hand guards, shark fin, stabilizer, frame guards, axle slider etc that you would have to add to any other bike weight as well?
Hey Boss...450 is with fuel...so our numbers are almost identical.....

The Fairing and Tower add a few pounds over the mask that gets removed...but it can't be an adventure bike without a fairing right....

There are a lot of good points in this thread but also some vagueness as to what an adventure bike needs by definition...???

1) A twin engine,,,,a thumper is a thumper...
2) Wind protection...8 hours at 70mph
3) Range...200 miles minimum
4) Ability to carry gear
5) Armour

To the points regarding both the 690 and the Aprilia RXV:

1) The Aprilia is a "never go more than 40 miles from the truck" bike. I have owned one...the remarkable light weight is due to the very delicate build...the bike is an Italian Beauty that needs to be treated as such...No protection...No range....no ability to carry gear...no armour...no reliabilty...no suspension etc etc etc...wouldn't last 2 weeks on its own

2) The 690..Thumper...strike one...no fairing...two...no range...three...run it through a high speed water crossing and you will see strike 4...

As far as well it is 2012 and so we should be able to shave 20% off the weight....someone still needs to answer where?

The frame on the SE weighs very very little...Titanium?...bye bye budget
Fuel weighs what...7lbs a gallon?
Service intervals?...3.5 liters of oil...that adds weight...
The LC8 motor weighs roughly 128lbs....pretty light unless you go with exotic materials.
Lighter chain and sprockets....?...service intervals
Good luck with a lightweight seat,,,,hahahaha.

I want one of these 370lb wonders....just show me how...
__________________
'14 1190R...Adventure Beast
'13 690 Quest...Rally Beast
950SE......Desert Beast
'Berg 570..Trail Beast

Nowwhat screwed with this post 10-31-2012 at 02:04 PM
Nowwhat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2012, 01:59 PM   #104
Chadx
Off the road again..
 
Chadx's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Location: Bozeman, Montana
Oddometer: 2,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by geometrician View Post
So the crux of the OP's post: producing 90hp out of a 700 (or even 800) means spinning it faster. In summary wanting a 700-750cc 90hp bike means you've essentially got the same situation KTM has created with the new "150hp" 1190 Adventure- a bike that require spinning the engine to make its power- which takes away from the Adventure bike utility we're after.
Couldn't agree more. 90hp is way more than I need or want in a mid-size adventure bike. Weight, mpg, and off-road ability while two-up riding are more important to me. If I wanted 90hp, I'd just get a 990 and be done. 65hp - 80hp works for me. The 60 - 65 hp in a Weestrom is plenty for two up and loaded down and would be plenty for me in this class bike It just doesn't have a good trail-riding chassis that I'm after (ground clearance and suspension travel and stoutness for two-up).

The problem with a lower hp, efficient engine is it's not "exciting". I think the Honda NC700 engine would be a perfect dual sport motor (as far as hp and efficiency are concerned. I don't know how much it weighs). It redlines at something like 6300, has a small bore and long stroke (to get good mpg) and in theory would make a great adventure bike engine....but would be ripped apart in the magazines because it doesn't make as much hp and isn't as exciting as the other bikes in it's class. I can still dream. In the minority, but still dream.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowwhat View Post
I want one of these 370lb wonders....just show me how...
I agree. 370 is pushing it (especially if that is wet). For weight, I'm good with 410 - 430 lbs wet with full tank. BMW 800GS is listed as 456 wet w/gas. Triumph 800XC is 473 wet with gas. Suzuki DL650 470 lbs. Make a bike that is 20 - 30 lbs lighter thant the GS, but with a good stout and adjustable suspension and a make it reliable and you have a new class leader. I'm OK with hp being even a tad less, but up the torque and maybe even improve fuel mileage to allow more range out of a small 4 gallon underseat tank.

One final thought on hp....Good suspension and low weight do more for being able to ride this type of bike faster in rough terrain or dirt roads than hp. That would also allow one to carry more momentum through twisty tarmac roads. Cruising down the highway, hp doesn't matter. So why all the fuss about hp? Yes it's fun and more exciting, but doesn't make much of a real world difference in this class of bike. I'd rather push a bike closer to it's maxium engine performance most of the time, than run a higher hp engine at 1/2 it's potential most of the time.



Chadx screwed with this post 10-31-2012 at 02:26 PM
Chadx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2012, 02:02 PM   #105
Nowwhat
I'll Go Second...
 
Nowwhat's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: On the Ground Laughing
Oddometer: 4,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by geometrician View Post



Torque is what gets the vehicle moving- and is why Harley-Davidson bikes beat the Japanese four-cylinders at NHRA dragraces every weekend. Your average street HD will beat your sportbike across the intersection and into the next block before you catch him & zoom on to stratospheric top speed (and redline). Horsepower sounds great when you don't know Torque is what we're after. I'd rather have more torque than horsepower on an Adventure bike anyday
I love this,,,,hahaha

I always remember....Hp is how fast you hit the wall....Trq is how far you push the wall after you hit it....
__________________
'14 1190R...Adventure Beast
'13 690 Quest...Rally Beast
950SE......Desert Beast
'Berg 570..Trail Beast
Nowwhat is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 04:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014