Can KTM build a significantly lighter 700-800cc twin? Is there a market for it?

[Fishfund]

Originally Posted by crofrog

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.

It had less than 1,000 miles when I started the trip, yes it was used.

Originally Posted by crofrog

What type of mileage did you get, how did it change once you took the akrapovic map off?

I had the stock map all the way until Turkey. With the stock map on the highway at 75 mph I was getting 35 mpg. Nick was much higher, but he didn't run the numbers. I just know that we filled up everyday at the same pumps and only once did I take less fuel then his bike. The one time I got better mileage, I was riding faster because my bike handled the slippy dirt road better than nicks F800GS

Originally Posted by crofrog

What type of mileage was Nick getting? From what I've read the F800's get about 50ish did you see that real world?

I'm not sure what he got, I would guess averaging 60 mpg and me averaging 45 mpg.

Originally Posted by LukasM

I don't want a stripped down 950/990, I want a smoother, slightly more powerful and more reliable twin cylinder 690.

Agreed, and I don't even need more power. As a side benefit would fuel economy improve just by going to a twin? I don't know anything about this stuff.

And one more thought. I really only care about the motor, transmission and frame. I can't fix or change those things so they have to be perfect from the start. As far as seat comfort, wind protection, lights, fuel capacity/placement and luggage go, WHO CARES? The aftermarket will take care of that for us. We just need the right engine, trans and frame combo to start with.

[LukasM]

Originally Posted by Fishfund

And one more thought. I really only care about the motor, transmission and frame. I can't fix or change those things so they have to be perfect from the start. As far as seat comfort, wind protection, lights, fuel capacity/placement and luggage go, WHO CARES? The aftermarket will take care of that for us. We just need the right engine, trans and frame combo to start with.

That's what I'm thinking, I would be perfectly fine with a dirt bike style stripped down version a la 690 Enduro or 950 Super Enduro. Those that do want a fixed fairing could add it easily enough. Same with extra tanks, somebody would come up with front tanks for those that need more range, just like you can buy Aqualines for the 950/990 and the Rally Raid Prod. UK or OEM KTM Rally tanks on the 690-

[It'sNotTheBike]

Originally Posted by crofrog

... I'm not sure about composite frames for an off-road bike. While strong there failure mode is shitty compared to metal.

There is a lot more to it than the "failure mode is shitty". In fact, composites can have better
failure characteristics than many metals because cracks don't tend to propagate in a composite
part like they do in many metals. Many helicopter rotor blades are made of composites. Do you
think they are using those materials because they cannot afford to use metals ? How about the
structure of the largest Airbus ? Did they use composites because they weren't worried about failure ?
Or perhaps you'd like to consider the empennage of the F-18 fighter. Again, composites were used and
they could use any materials they wished. Bulletproof vests are made of composites ... etc.


Composites can be designed to deal with a LOT of abuse. It's common to see a composite mountain
bike frame these days. The "tub" in virtually all Formula 1 cars is composite and is much stronger for
its weight than it could otherwise be if it were made of metals. Drivers routinely survive crashes which
would have been fatal in the days of Mallite ( alloy sandwiched with end-grain balsa ) chassis or "birdcage"
chassis ( a KTM 950 frame is a birdcage structure ). Composites are absolutely the way forward, though as
long as motorcycles continue to sell with the old tech there is no reason for the manufacturers to change what
they offer.


In any case, for bikes to be much lighter than they now are, it's going to take more changes than simply
using pressure casting instead of sand casting. A reduction in engine displacement is not going to magically
drop 50 pounds or more from the weight of a bike. Fundamental changes in how the bike is designed and built
are the things which will make this possible.


Those who don't want to wait and wish and who want a twin can emulate the work done by
Powercell with his 950 Super Enduro.


But I would like to see KTM sell a 690 Enduro with a wide-ratio gearbox and a real-world 250 mile range.
That is the bike which would come closest to being ideal for all-round adventure riding. A twin will get worse
fuel economy than an optimized single because of added reciprocating mass and friction, and will not be
as light as a single, other things ( such as materials and casting methods ) being equal. The 690 is a very
smooth engine considering it is a single, and it has more than enough power. The 690 has other issues which need
to be addressed ( all of which have been discussed on this forum ) but the smoothness and power should not be
deal-breakers for a rider who understands that a single brings benefits which are not possible with a twin.


So, "can" KTM build a significantly lighter 700-800cc twin ? Of course. Will KTM do this ?
I doubt it. They might build a twin which has 750cc displacement, but
they are not going to spend the money required to build a significantly lighter bike
because the bike would not sell in large enough numbers to justify the capital expense
required to tool up to build a significantly lighter bike. Maybe when 1,000 of us line up
and give KTM a full $16,000 deposit KTM might change its mind on whether to embark
on building this lighter bike, but that's not going to happen, so for KTM to actually
build a revolutionary light weight twin someone at KTM is going to have to stick his neck
out pretty far, with the awareness that failure could cost him his career. That's not
what a smart and rational person who is high enough in the KTM hierarchy to have the power
to make such decisions is likely to do, especially not when they are selling all the bikes
they make already.



.

[juames]

Holy crap that looks awesome. 85hp v-twin, 360lbs!

Originally Posted by cjracer

[Chadx]

Originally Posted by Yardstick

Where is the option for those of us who would say, "The LC8 based, dirt-biased bikes are my unicorn! I have no interest in the 1190 or the mythical, small twin."?

That will likely be a matter of finding a used Super Enduro or grabbing a current 990 Adventure, while they last, and modding. Seems everything, nowadays, needs to fit in a "catagory" and with the Adventure Touring bikes all migrating to 1,200cc, and the big singles hovering between 500 - 690cc, that leaves the 700 - 800cc middleweight multicylinder class.

That isn't all bad. There is a lot of ways to implement an 800cc bike. Light, high hp race motor, offroad focused or more adventure focused with lower hp, efficiency and reliability in mind. I'm happy that the 1190 rides dirty as good as that preliminary report. That might just have some of the 990 fans changing their opinion once they get a ride on one. Will be fun to hear how it compares in the inevitable new shootouts. I hope the first one is against the 990 Adventure.

Even in this thread there seem to be two camps for this midsize unicorn. Those focused on more relaxed and relliable and those wanting a more aggressive bike or even a 690-based bike. We'll not all get our wish (and maybe none of us) but it sure is fun to talk about it!

[Yardstick]

Originally Posted by Chadx

...
Even in this thread there seem to be two camps for this midsize unicorn. Those focused on more relaxed and relliable and those wanting a more aggressive bike or even a 690-based bike. We'll not all get our wish (and maybe none of us) but it sure is fun to talk about it!

That's something else I have been thinking about while watching this thread. The hardcore off-road crowd wants a performance engine and good suspension and ground clearance. The travelers want good suspension (but plush/comfortable). Maybe they're less concerned with ground clearance? But they WANT/NEED a motor that is going to last. I know that if I were planning to go RTW on back roads, a KTM would be pretty far down the list of choices. Not because it's not comfortable or not capable or not reliabile, but because it craves that liquid gold Motorex oil (the 690 takes oil that is even harder to find than the stuff for the LC8s) and drinks high octane fuel. For traveling the world, I'd prefer a bike that can better tolerate crap fuel and only needs something slippery and wet to keep the engine from seizing and galling into scrap metal.

[Nowwhat]

Originally Posted by Yardstick

but because it craves that liquid gold Motorex oil (the 690 takes oil that is even harder to find than the stuff for the LC8s) .

http://www.walmart.com/ip/14958327?a...l5=pla&veh=sem

[geometrician]

Originally Posted by It'sNotTheBike

There is a lot more to it than the "failure mode is shitty". In fact, composites can have better failure characteristics than many metals because cracks don't tend to propagate in a composite part like they do in many metals. Many helicopter rotor blades are made of composites. Do you think they are using those materials because they cannot afford to use metals ? How about the structure of the largest Airbus ? Did they use composites because they weren't worried about failure ? Or perhaps you'd like to consider the empennage of the F-18 fighter. Again, composites were used and they could use any materials they wished. Bulletproof vests are made of composites ... etc.

Composites can be designed to deal with a LOT of abuse. It's common to see a composite mountain bike frame these days. The "tub" in virtually all Formula 1 cars is composite and is much stronger for its weight than it could otherwise be if it were made of metals. Drivers routinely survive crashes which would have been fatal in the days of Mallite ( alloy sandwiched with end-grain balsa ) chassis or "birdcage" chassis ( a KTM 950 frame is a birdcage structure ). Composites are absolutely the way forward, though as long as motorcycles continue to sell with the old tech there is no reason for the manufacturers to change what they offer

Cost. There's the reason. A single tail rotor blade in composite for a 5-decade old UH-1 is $12,000 currently... and there are two of them, not counting the main rotor. A good friend is an airframe maintenance supervisor for the US Army and quotes over $370,000 for a single main rotor blade- which have to be purchased in pairs as they are balanced against each other... and it gets more complex with 5-blade 'copters. Even the slightest contact damages them. As to whether they can afford it in the world of military spending- remember we had $600 toilet seats and now a $17,000 drip pan for catching hydraulic fluids in a Black Hawk helicopter


Composites have been around a long time starting before WWII with aircraft. Kawasaki in the 1970's used composite/monocoque frames (aluminum & otherwise) ending with their KR500 F1 roadracers. (Honda did too with their NR500) Some improvements we enjoy today followed the lead of many small European teams that used the talents of young engineering students who saw another way of doing things- since it hadn't been "done" yet they forged ahead to create many capable bikes/systems. Bimota, KTM, Ducati, Husqvarna, Aprilia et al have used just a handful of designers to create most of the designs we use today (including our beloved LC8). These one-off bikes were closely watched & even purchased by the motorcycle manufacturers to act as rolling laboratories, or to "own" the intellectual rights. Usually they were F2 bikes as the F1 bikes were expensive and already riding beyond the limits of tires, brakes & suspension technology and remained the factories' domain.

Composites are not the end-all, to be sure. At this time components must be carefully hand-laid-up, vacuum-compressed & autoclaved to create the finished product. Even in near-perfect production environments they have widely scattered results/rejections after testing. Most of the cost of modern aircraft are associated solely with creation of production techniques & the actual assembly line.

When damaged the layers pull apart & are fiber unions torn so they don't appear to propagate cracks but in fact that's how they are damaged- you just can't see it like other materials. When fiber-based composites are damaged (or fail for whatever reason) they are (usually, nearly) impossible to repair as they rely on the continuous structure to provide the required strength. It's brittle by nature, so one has to introduce more resin or layers to create survivability which increases weight & costs. How many CF skid plates/expansion chamber guards have I seen cracked after contact? All of 'em, many in their first "use"- and FWIW the expansion chambers gets dented anyway. Also the fibers are quite dangerous once exposed and can easily cut riding gear & skin, or fuel/vacuum lines, wiring looms, etc.

F1 drivers buckets are built to absorb/disperse energy & protect in a naturally self-reinforcing shape. Again, huge cost, one-off production. And after damage they are replaced...

As for Airbus, do you know how many governments & corporations (even economies) have stuck their necks out on this gamble to trade more sold seats per flight vs. aircraft weight? And how many years did it take with the best aerospace engineers with millennia of combined experience to get it done? KTM ain't gonna do it...

With bullet-proof vests, they are designed to disperse energy spikes at a certain rate coming from one direction to prevent penetration to the wearer. They are retired/returned to the manufacturer for examination after "use".

LC8's have "trellis frames", never heard "bird cage" used, neither had Google when I looked

Motorcycle frames must maintain wheel alignment, hold engine/etc, direct suspension energies & be able to handle reasonable crash damage over it's entire life (10-15yrs?). I've thrown 5 metal-framed bikes down the road/track at over 100mph and 3 of them were still rideable, The inertial energies involved compare to a loaded Adventure Bike at 70mph, a reasonable top speed for any motorcycle. Our engine-based sidestand mounts are an example of something that would work in a static environment but fail in a dynamic one. So, for now, metal is here to stay as the material of choice for a frame.

In the real-world of Adventure Bikes composite frames don't meet the criteria of a go-anywhere vehicle. How's a rider or mechanic in the middle of Africa gonna be able effect repairs? Or even Seattle or Los Angeles where composite assembly lines & experience abounds in the local populations? You can't weld/braze it, or even drill holes & bolt stuff up- you're concentrating energy in ways composites don't work- in a system that relies on every fiber's participation to maintain it's function. There are plenty of Inmates in OC alone that have spent many hours/days building new airboxes, inner fenders, fuel cells. fairings or even a luggage rack in carbon fiber/resin composites- it HAS potentials galore and some day it will be used on cars (already a few out there prototyping) sold to the public- but this will have more to do with the relative energies involved in smelting metals & creating/working alloys versus the MPG (or miles/amphour for electrics!) gained over the life of the vehicle.

Originally Posted by It'sNotTheBike

So, "can" KTM build a significantly lighter 700-800cc twin ? Of course. Will KTM do this ? I doubt it. They might build a twin which has 750cc displacement, but they are not going to spend the money required to build a significantly lighter bike because the bike would not sell in large enough numbers to justify the capital expense required to tool up to build a significantly lighter bike. Maybe when 1,000 of us line up and give KTM a full $16,000 deposit KTM might change its mind on whether to embark on building this lighter bike, but that's not going to happen, so for KTM to actually build a revolutionary light weight twin someone at KTM is going to have to stick his neckout pretty far, with the awareness that failure could cost him his career. That's not what a smart and rational person who is high enough in the KTM hierarchy to have the power to make such decisions is likely to do, especially not when they are selling all the bikes they make already

Agreed, other than they're hoping for unit sales of 50,000+ for a model over it's lifetime- plus $16,000 is WAY too much money!

KTM sunk millions of Euros into their 350SXF project- they thought they were getting a head-start on the "premier moto/supercross switches from 450cc to 350cc" move that didn't occur (conspiracy theories suggest the Big Four lobbied FIM/AMA/etc as per usual to keep with 450cc thus hurting KTM). They ended up with a bike that had to run against 450s as it couldn't race in 250 class. We couldn't give those things away at our dealership- everyone wanted the 450. That one move seriously fucked the company up; moreover the engine they ended up with has a limited lifespan from being designed with weight in mind (cases crack internally among others)- so you can bet they are going to be really careful in the future- hence the "bigger is better" 1190 re-purposed RC8-engined Adventure we have coming now

In the end I think it's funny people obsess so much on weight- lose weight/exercise, take a poop before you ride, carry less stuff with you, put less fuel in when riding offroad- Fabrizio Meoni was a little guy riding a taller bike than any "high" early "S" models- and he kicked ass at the Dakar. Hey, it ain't the bike, right?

Originally Posted by jerdog53

What I guess bothers me the most it that KTM will invest in building a 375 twin for the Duke for sale in lesser world countries, dumb it down and sell volumes rather than build a midsized twin to put into a slightly modified 690 frame

A rumor and the idea of twice the parts, machining/cost/weight- it ain't gonna happen. As for "lesser-world" countries, they have more unit sales there than in all of North America, Europe & Australia combined. A 125/200 Duke single is like a Porsche in India where the Honda-based 100/125's started life on a 1960's drawing board.

Originally Posted by crofrog

stick a really really heavy flywheel on it.

that doesn't do it! You need an additional counterbalancer as per the KLR600/650 to seriously quell vibrations. All 690s buzz & shake like hell and feel busy at highway speeds which prevent some people for riding them a long time- yeah I know us guys are all hardcore but when you deal with John Q Customer that's what I hear, and that keeps them close to home not roaming the world. People have ridden Honda CB125's & even 50cc scooters across the US- but that doesn't mean I want to (or other Adventure Bike riders who average 38 yrs old so a survey says)... in the words of Chis Rock, "you can drive a car with your feet- but that doesn't make it a good idea"

[Yardstick]

Originally Posted by Nowwhat

http://www.walmart.com/ip/14958327?a...l5=pla&veh=sem

Rotella 15W40 according to the MSDS is: Highly refined mineral oils and additives.


950/990 Oil Recommendation
>= 0C (32F) 10W/50 Fully Synthetic
< 0C (32F) 5W/40 Synthetic (Rotella T6 meets this, actually -but your 15W/40 meets neither spec.)

690 Oil Recommendation
10W/60 Synthetic Engine Oil
Alternate: 10W/50 Fully Synthetic Engine Oil

Which is why if I were traveling the world I would want a bike that could tolerate a large spectrum of oils. And not just well enough to get by, but well enough to still have long oil change intervals.

[geometrician]

Originally Posted by Yardstick

Rotella 15W40 according to the MSDS is: Highly refined mineral oils and additives.


950/990 Oil Recommendation
>= 0C (32F) 10W/50 Fully Synthetic
< 0C (32F) 5W/40 Synthetic (Rotella T6 meets this, actually -but your 15W/40 meets neither spec.)

690 Oil Recommendation
10W/60 Synthetic Engine Oil
Alternate: 10W/50 Fully Synthetic Engine Oil

Which is why if I were traveling the world I would want a bike that could tolerate a large spectrum of oils. And not just well enough to get by, but well enough to still have long oil change intervals.

The most important requirement in the KTM owners manual is that the oil meet "JASO T903 MA" specifications. This denotes the use in motorcycles with our engine types. See here

The viscosity of multi-weight oils is vs. actual viscosity is complex to be sure. As long as it isn't really cold (think near-Arctic conditions) or really hot (equatorial deserts) most any JASO MA oil will do.

[Yardstick]

Originally Posted by geometrician

The most important requirement in the KTM owners manual is that the oil meet "JASO T903 MA" specifications. This denotes the use in motorcycles with our engine types. See here

The viscosity of multi-weight oils is vs. actual viscosity is complex to be sure. As long as it isn't really cold (think near-Arctic conditions) or really hot (equatorial deserts) most any JASO MA oil will do.

Yeah, I wasn't sure I wanted to post anything about oil. My point is, if you want to stick to the manufacturer's recommendation for the best performance and life of the engine, KTMs take a pretty specific and sometimes hard to find viscosity of oil. It would be nice, in a traveling bike, to have a wide range of usable oils.

[It'sNotTheBike]

Originally Posted by geometrician

LC8's have "trellis frames", never heard "bird cage" used, neither had Google when I looked

Obviously you don't know about the Birdcage Maserati.

By the way, your use of the apostrophe in your above sentence is incorrect. The apostrophe does not belong
between the "8" and the "s". If you want to call someone out on mistakes you imagine
they made, best to first make sure you didn't make some yourself, especially not
fundamental mistakes that a mid-level high school graduate shouldn't make.


The point ( which obviously escaped you ) was not to bicker over
the nomenclature of frames, the point was that frames which use many smaller tubes are
labor-intensive to build and composite construction techniques will ( already have, actually ) reach the point
where it costs less to build a composite structure than it costs to build a welded steel frame.
This is already happening in the bicycle industry, and the motorcycle industry will follow
suit whether you agree or not. While you are sitting there telling us all how and why it
cannot be done, there are already people doing it and there will be more of them every year.
Of course, they could all be wrong ... maybe you'd better call up Trek Bicycle and tell them
they need to quit making composite frames for midrange bikes ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maserati_Tipo_61



.

[Idle]

Ok, let's add lubricants to that which we don't speak of anymore.

Gear ratios then.

I have a wide ratio 6 speed with the 6th as an overdrive. (berg 650)
Some above think that that is what they want in the lighter KTM v-twin rtwadv bike.

I disagree.

The wind resistance at the speeds between revved out in 5th or bogging in top gear make an overdrive 6th a flawed concept.

The reality is a 6-10 mph range of speeds that my engine isnt happy doing. (depending on my final gearing.)

I'd rather have an even spread across the gear range. 1rst is good, 6th is good. It's 2,3,4, and 5 that need do be incrementally taller. My bike and any other bike can pull those wider ratios at lower speeds without issue.

[crofrog]

Originally Posted by It'sNotTheBike

Composites can be designed to deal with a LOT of abuse. It's common to see a composite mountain
bike frame these days.

And I've seen allot of them crack how many cro-moly bike frames have you seen cracked?

How many pedal bikers take cf framed bikes on world tours? How many touring bikes are even made with a CF frame?

The "tub" in virtually all Formula 1 cars is composite and is much stronger for
its weight than it could otherwise be if it were made of metals. Drivers routinely survive crashes which
would have been fatal in the days of Mallite ( alloy sandwiched with end-grain balsa ) chassis or "birdcage"
chassis ( a KTM 950 frame is a birdcage structure ).

That has nothing to do with motorcycle frames... The goal of those structures is to redirect and asorb the impact they're one use only.

When I crash my adventure bike in the middle of know where I want the frame to survive even if it's bent to shit versus having unrideable cracks, and I'd like to be able to roll up to some back water town and find a welder and have them be able to make repairs.

Metal bends, CF fractures.

Composites are absolutely the way forward, though as
long as motorcycles continue to sell with the old tech there is no reason for the manufacturers to change what
they offer.

How many carbon framed motogp bikes are there?

[It'sNotTheBike]

Originally Posted by Yardstick

Yeah, I wasn't sure I wanted to post anything about oil. My point is, if you want to stick to the manufacturer's recommendation for the best performance and life of the engine, KTMs take a pretty specific and sometimes hard to find viscosity of oil. It would be nice, in a traveling bike, to have a wide range of usable oils.

Or you could just carry some oil with you, and have more oil shipped to waypoints on your trip.
I consider the fuel injection hassles such as Fishfund experienced to be far more significant
than the oil requirement. The fuel injection systems ( on various KTMs ) have not yet reached
a level of reliability which would be desirable for a trip away from the typical trappings of civilization.
I'd much rather have a vacuum fuel pump and carbs. Of course the Euro emissions requirements make
carbs a thing of the past for street legal bikes, so we are left to retrofit carbs or buy a bike which came
with them OEM or take our chances with fuel injection and maybe carry a bunch of spares to hedge our bets.



.