Wow new 125's are slow aren't they ?.

[Smoke&Slide]

Sorry to keep going on about this but, don't care how old you are ( younger or older ).2 strokes are just faster and safer as you can get out the way of people, with pure acceleration and probably have good handling and braking to boot.If manufacturers made new 2 stroke bikes, people would be more eager to pass their tests aswell.

Just reading the latest www.motorcyclenews.com newspaper and the 0-50mph figures are pathetic ( KTM RC125 is 11.57 seconds ), these bikes couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding.Unbelievably sloooooow these bikes.I would hate to ride these machines, they are dangerous.The whole point of a motorcycle is to have fun and to get to a place quicker than a car or other vehicles enough said.Some people may disagree but that is your opinion.

I'd have a 125cc v twin 2 stroke or single to learn on in my opinion.

S&S.

 

[Bopop4]

Sorry to keep going on about this.

Every post in this subforum by you has been this 2 stroke nonsense.

2 strokes are just faster and safer as you can get out the way of people,

No and no.
A two stroke is not faster than a four stroke, and it certainly can't get out of the way of anything because a 2 stroke can't pull from the bottom like a 4 stroke.
Even an NSR 500 would get beaten in a 60 mph 6th gear roll on against a 5 year old Ducati.

probably have good handling and braking to boot.

A 2 stroke has low weight going for it, that's it.
They're much more difficult to ride because they can't put the power down.

If manufacturers made new 2 stroke bikes, people would be more eager to pass their tests aswell.

Comepletely baseless argument as you just made it up.

Just reading the latest www.motorcyclenews.com newspaper and the 0-50mph figures are pathetic ( KTM RC125 is 11.57 seconds ), these bikes couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding.Unbelievably sloooooow these bikes.I would hate to ride these machines, they are dangerous.The whole point of a motorcycle is to have fun and to get to a place quicker than a car or other vehicles enough said.Some people may disagree but that is your opinion.

You missed the entire point, it's in the same class as the CBR125, a learner bike.

It's not supposed to be fast, it's supposed to be a fun, allow and cheap way to get people riding, literally the exact opposite of what a 2 stroke does to people's perceptions of motorcycles.

You put a good rider in a learner 125 and they'll go faster on a twisty road than 90 percent of street riders regardless of what they are on.


That is fact, what is opinion is what you're spewing off in this forum everytime you try to go into a W&N style troglodyte rant.



A modern 4 stroke is better in every single way than a equivalent 2 stroke.
The only things that a 2 stroke has the upper hand at are smell, nostalgia, and sound based on preference.

 

[Slash]

Even I would argue about the smell.

Bopop basically covered everything I was going to say.

 

[mustangGT90210]

I'll take my 4 strokes. I think 2 strokes sound and smell like ass

 

[Bopop4]

I'll take my 4 strokes. I think 2 strokes sound and smell like ass

Yes about the sound.

But that smell comment, them's fightin' words.

A racing 2 stroke smells incredible, and it changes depending on the brand of oil.

 

[mustangGT90210]

I have limited experience so maybe I smelled the wrong oil

 

[Slash]

Both 4 and 2 strokes smeel fantastic IMO.

 

[RC45]

Every post in this subforum by you has been this 2 stroke nonsense.



No and no.
A two stroke is not faster than a four stroke, and it certainly can't get out of the way of anything because a 2 stroke can't pull from the bottom like a 4 stroke.
Even an NSR 500 would get beaten in a 60 mph 6th gear roll on against a 5 year old Ducati.



A 2 stroke has low weight going for it, that's it.
They're much more difficult to ride because they can't put the power down.



Comepletely baseless argument as you just made it up.



You missed the entire point, it's in the same class as the CBR125, a learner bike.

It's not supposed to be fast, it's supposed to be a fun, allow and cheap way to get people riding, literally the exact opposite of what a 2 stroke does to people's perceptions of motorcycles.

You put a good rider in a learner 125 and they'll go faster on a twisty road than 90 percent of street riders regardless of what they are on.


That is fact, what is opinion is what you're spewing off in this forum everytime you try to go into a W&N style troglodyte rant.



A modern 4 stroke is better in every single way than a equivalent 2 stroke.
The only things that a 2 stroke has the upper hand at are smell, nostalgia, and sound based on preference.

Most of your reply was incorrect - no, all of it was incorrect.

Note how the closing of your opinion piece was 'a modern 4 stroke is better in every single way than a equivalent 2 stroke'.

OK - please list the MODERN equivalent 2 strokes for the modern 4 strokes you seem to be championing?

*all ears*

Then, when you are done - list the PERIOD correct 4 stroke equivalents of the last generation of production 2 stroke sport bikes...

Then make an intelligent FACT based comment on the performance comparisons of THOSE period bikes....

Even I would argue about the smell.
Bopop basically covered everything I was going to say.

And you would essentially be wrong as well.

 

[Smoke&Slide]

Most of your reply was incorrect - no, all of it was incorrect.

Note how the closing of your opinion piece was 'a modern 4 stroke is better in every single way than a equivalent 2 stroke'.

OK - please list the MODERN equivalent 2 strokes for the modern 4 strokes you seem to be championing?

*all ears*

Then, when you are done - list the PERIOD correct 4 stroke equivalents of the last generation of production 2 stroke sport bikes...

Then make an intelligent FACT based comment on the performance comparisons of THOSE period bikes....


And you would essentially be wrong as well.

Well said.

 

[Grayfox]

Arn't 2 stokes more prone to wear since when you are not on the throttle the engine cylinder does not get oil

 

[Slash]

Arn't 2 stokes more prone to wear since when you are not on the throttle the engine cylinder does not get oil

Yes, the required to be rebuilt much more frequently the 4 strokes do.

 

[Bopop4]

Arn't 2 stokes more prone to wear since when you are not on the throttle the engine cylinder does not get oil

Modern 2 strokes are much better with closed throttle seizes than the biked from 40 years ago.
What a 2 stroke will do however, is seize.
Fortunately they're pretty cheap to do a top end rebuild on.

Most of your reply was incorrect - no, all of it was incorrect.

Note how the closing of your opinion piece was 'a modern 4 stroke is better in every single way than a equivalent 2 stroke'.

OK - please list the MODERN equivalent 2 strokes for the modern 4 strokes you seem to be championing?

*all ears*

Then, when you are done - list the PERIOD correct 4 stroke equivalents of the last generation of production 2 stroke sport bikes...

Then make an intelligent FACT based comment on the performance comparisons of THOSE period bikes....


And you would essentially be wrong as well.

Those are a lot of words with not much said.
I don't see a shred of anything that proves me otherwise on any of the points I made.

On your first point, look at any modern motocross and enduro lineup, there are still 2 strokes from Yamaha and KTM.

Have you ever ridden a 2 stroke dirtbike and 4 stroke equivalent?

I have a 2008 KTM 200, my friend has a 2007 KX250, there is absolutely no way that those bikes are as fast as any modern 250f or 450f

The power delivery is superior on the 4 strokes. A 450f has more power at every rpm than a 250 2t, and yet it is easier to put the power down and it doesn't tire you out nearly as much.

If 2 strokes were still as quick as a 4 stroke you'd see them in AMA and the Euro MX series.


As for sportbikes, back when they allowed 4 strokes into MotoGP it was clear from the very start that the 500s were done. And that was after decades of developnext for the 2 strokes vs the first year of 4 strokes.


The only modern 2 stroke that would still be competitive is a 250GP bike, and every year the 600s get faster due to development, yet the 2 stroke has reached its peak.

On the street bike side there is the RZ350 vs something like a Honda VF500.
The 500 is just as quick in a straight line and has better handling.

Race a 2 stroke road bike and then race a 4 stroke road bike. Smooth power is one of the keys, which also helps normal street riders because you don't have to downshift 4 gears to go anywhere.


Look at specs all you want, but they don't determine lap times.

 

[Slash]

Power delivery on 2 strokes unless you are MX racing and have a setup specifically for mid to top end, flat out sucks.

 

[Bopop4]

Power delivery on 2 strokes unless you are MX racing and have a setup specifically for mid to top end, flat out sucks.

It's just as bad for MX, you get arm pump very quickly, and they're just harder to hang onto despite not having as much power.

The current MX1 champion actually races a 350 instead of a 450. If he thinks a 450 is too much power for a motocross race then that leaves a 250 2t without a hope.

 

[Slash]

Well seeing as I'm not a twist throttle fan to begin with, I wouldn't know

 

[RC45]

Bebop - you keep comparing older smokers to newer diesels. (the irony of the nicknames has always made me smile)

How about taking your 2007 smoker and comparing to a 2007 diesel... THAT is the point.

You choose the RZ350 to compare as street sport bike against a VF500?? Wow talk about a mismatch. The RZ350 is a 1983/4/5 design and the US street version was no where near what the rest of the world got. The VF500 looked like it was left in the previous zip code when facing down the 250 2 strokes of the day on the street.

In fact, back in 1984 & 1985 the VF1000 would have a hard time not getting kicked in th nuts by a RZ350 or even an RZ250.

The RG500 and RZ500 provided similar headaches to the GPz900 and GSXR750 and FZ750 in 1986.

But then a funny thing happened - there was never another large bore 2 stroke mid size sport bike designed build for the street - ever. So any comparison after that is moot and stupid. Every street 2 stroke since then was in the sub 300cc category. Which BTW - has been dominated by 2 strokes.

Of course a 2014 1000cc 4 stroke sport bike is superior in every way to a 1986 RG500.

It better be - it is double the engine capacity and it has 30 years of FACTORY development behind it compared to the 1984/5/6 street 500cc street 2 stroke bike.

How old are you mate? Your age will help determine your hate of all things 2 stroke.

 

[Slash]

Bebop - you keep comparing older smokers to newer diesels. (the irony of the nicknames has always made me smile)

How about taking your 2007 smoker and comparing to a 2007 diesel... THAT is the point.

You choose the RZ350 to compare as street sport bike against a VF500?? Wow talk about a mismatch. The RZ350 is a 1983/4/5 design and the US street version was no where near what the rest of the world got. The VF500 looked like it was left in the previous zip code when facing down the 250 2 strokes of the day on the street.

In fact, back in 1984 & 1985 the VF1000 would have a hard time not getting kicked in th nuts by a RZ350 or even an RZ250.

The RG500 and RZ500 provided similar headaches to the GPz900 and GSXR750 and FZ750 in 1986.

But then a funny thing happened - there was never another large bore 2 stroke mid size sport bike designed build for the street - ever. So any comparison after that is moot and stupid. Every street 2 stroke since then was in the sub 300cc category. Which BTW - has been dominated by 2 strokes.

Of course a 2014 1000cc 4 stroke sport bike is superior in every way to a 1986 RG500.

It better be - it is double the engine capacity and it has 30 years of FACTORY development behind it compared to the 1984/5/6 street 500cc street 2 stroke bike.

How old are you mate? Your age will help determine your hate of all things 2 stroke.

I find it pretty sad that a 30 year old three wheeler 250 2 stroke ATV will run 8s in the 1/8th mile and modern machines are hardly 2 seconds faster with a good driver

 

[RC45]

As for sportbikes, back when they allowed 4 strokes into MotoGP it was clear from the very start that the 500s were done. And that was after decades of developnext for the 2 strokes vs the first year of 4 strokes.

No - the point was the factories (Honda specifically) always wanted a 4 strokes in GP competition but the technology had to first catch up to ALLOW 4 strokes to deliver the power to overcome the weight and wasted power cycle compared to the 2 strokes.

Add to this the electronics management systems that now manage power and traction (which if a 2 stroke GP bike is fitted with will mean the 2t is as simple ride as the 4t) that allow the 4t G P bike to deliver the performance it does.

If you where a true student of 2t vs. 4t you would know all about the early domination of GP by 4t's then Suzuki changes that in the 70's with the RG Gamma then Yamaha stepped up in the late 70's with the TZ/YZR and then in the early 80's Honda tried to jump in with the 4t NR500 but fell flat on its face - so the 2t NS500 was debuted.

The point is that in order for the 4t to rake over the 500cc GP class, the FIM and the manufacturers worked together - the formula was changed to favor GP 4t development - this allows the factories to feed street tech up into GP and GP tech down onto the street bikes.

The reason - 2t bikes fell into disfavor on the street due to ignorant and meddling government legislation.

Understand GP racing does not take place in a vacuum - it is a very expensive sport that is influenced by governments, factories, buyers and silly rule books.

The day the 500cc MotoGP class is racing 500cc 4 strokes (rather than 1000cc) that can do the same thing that 500cc 2 strokes could will be the day that 'the 4 stroke is better than the 2 stroke'.

 

[Slash]

2 stroke bikes on the street are pointless.

 

[Bopop4]

You choose the RZ350 to compare as street sport bike against a VF500?? Wow talk about a mismatch. The RZ350 is a 1983/4/5 design and the US street version was no where near what the rest of the world got. The VF500 looked like it was left in the previous zip code when facing down the 250 2 strokes of the day on the street.

Yes, because it's a good match.
I would know, as I raced one against 500s, FZR400s and 125 GP bikes.

The only bike the 350 could compete with in a straight line was the 500, the 400 and 125s obliterated for RZ in the corners.


Since you didn't quote the exact parts you are referring to, I have no idea what you're talking about with any of that other stuff.

How old are you mate? Your age will help determine your hate of all things 2 stroke.

I raced a 2 stroke, I did trials for several years exclusively on 2 strokes. I took several months to find the perfect bike for me, and it was a 2 stroke.

I love my KTM for woods and trail riding, but for serious racing in anything other than the woods a 4 stroke is superior.

Same with the RZ, I would never ride on the street but if I did the RZ would be my choice because of its quirks. Even if something like an FZR600 outclasses it.

No - the point was the factories (Honda specifically) always wanted a 4 strokes in GP competition but the technology had to first catch up to ALLOW 4 strokes to deliver the power to overcome the weight and wasted power cycle compared to the 2 strokes.

Catch up?
When they debuted the 4 strokes were already far ahead of 500s, even the Moto2 bikes are only a second off the 500s of ten years ago.

(which if a 2 stroke GP bike is fitted with will mean the 2t is as simple ride as the 4t) that allow the 4t G P bike to deliver the performance it does.

I'm not sure how to respond to that because it's just wrong.

The 500s were vicious bikes, the 1000s are nowhere near as hard to ride.

No -
The reason - 2t bikes fell into disfavor on the street due to ignorant and meddling government legislation.

No, it's because people wanted a more reliable bike with a smooth power delivery.

If no one buys it then they don't want to sell them.

 

[RC45]

Yes, because it's a good match.
I would know, as I raced one against 500s, FZR400s and 125 GP bikes.

The only bike the 350 could compete with in a straight line was the 500, the 400 and 125s obliterated for RZ in the corners.

What year was this? 1984 when the RZ350 was a current street model? Not likely the FZR400 did not debut until 1986/7 - so again you are comparing a mismatched hodgepodge historic racing class probably being run in the mid 1990's to STREET BIKES that should be compared in context.

Ignorant comparison at best.

Since you didn't quote the exact parts you are referring to, I have no idea what you're talking about with any of that other stuff.

Not surprising - you don't seem to be able to follow simple logic or facts.

Old enough to know that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Hmm - whats the problem with admitting your age?

I raced a 2 stroke, I did trials for several years exclusively on 2 strokes. I took several months to find the perfect bike for me, and it was a 2 stroke.

I love my KTM for woods and trail riding, but for serious racing in anything other than the woods a 4 stroke is superior.

Same with the RZ, I would never ride on the street but if I did the RZ would be my choice because of its quirks. Even if something like an FZR600 outclasses it.

I am not even sure what your rant is aimed at.

You still failed to compare valid year models of 2t to equivalent 4t's.

You do realize that the RZ you race is in no way shape or form comparable with its original street counter part right? You do understand RACE MODDED versus street stock???

Catch up?
When they debuted the 4 strokes were already far ahead of 500s, even the Moto2 bikes are only a second off the 500s of ten years ago.

Again - because the rules allowed them to be. You really seem to not know that the factories where prepping for and had all the tech needed to build 4 stroke GP bikes if the rules favored it.

I'm not sure how to respond to that because it's just so ignorant it's beyond belief.

The 500s were vicious bikes, the 1000s are nowhere near as hard to ride.

Due to permitted management and controls. The only reason a MotoGP bikes APPEARS docile compared to a 2t is the management systems.

Period.

Saying anything else will finally prove you are just an obnoxious loud mouth with little value to add.

No, it's because people wanted a more reliable bike with a smooth power delivery.

If no one buys it then they don't want to sell them.

Pretty ignorant statement right there.

The Asian market proved for 25 years that reliable fast light weight 2 strokes are not only able to be produced, they are desired by the buying public.

10's of thousands of 250 2t and 400 4t in the parking lot outside Suzuka all through the 1990's proves your statement incorrect.

FFS man - where do you think all the grey market 2t and 4t bikes came from? Outer Space? They represent one of the single most successfully racing/sales combo formulas ever conceived.

Japanese Formula 3 - 250 2t vs. 400 4t.

Race on Sunday sell on Monday to millions of rabid fans locked in certain engine capacity tiers due to arbitrary legislation.

Any way - I guess you are all upset because you have been the resident bully in the bike forums forcing your opinion on anyone you could brow beat.

The real point is that OP is correct.

The modern small capacity 4t bike is piss poor when compared to the modern small capacity 2t bikes. Bikes that did not make it to the West because of absurd legislation.

The OP is correct in this regard.

 

[Smoke&Slide]

The quickest 2 stroke bike i've ridden is a Cagiva Elefant 125cc, with 33bhp.A CG125 Honda can't produce that, although the CG is more reliable.

 

[Bopop4]

What year was this? 1984 when the RZ350 was a current street model? Not likely the FZR400 did not debut until 1986/7 - so again you are comparing a mismatched hodgepodge historic racing class probably being run in the mid 1990's to STREET BIKES that should be compared in context.

The class limits are up to 1988, the 500 is older than my RZ. The 400 was made later on, but only by a few years, the RZ was one of the newest bikes being an 88.

Not surprising - you don't seem to be able to follow simple logic or facts.


Hmm - whats the problem with admitting your age?


I am not even sure what your rant is aimed at.

You still failed to compare valid year models of 2t to equivalent 4t's.

You do realize that the RZ you race is in no way shape or form comparable with its original street counter part right? You do understand RACE MODDED versus street stock???

I'm going to ignore that first part of ignorance for the sake of argument since you were just saying things without referencing what you referring to.

If I cared then I wouldn't have my age on my profile.

You asked for a direct comparison, I gave you one.

My 350 is completely stock apart from a mild port and removed lights.
The VF was stock, and the 400s were in varying states of tune.

Due to permitted management and controls. The only reason a MotoGP bikes APPEARS docile compared to a 2t is the management systems.

Period.

Saying anything else will finally prove you are just an obnoxious loud mouth with little value to add.

I guess every GP rider and journalist is wrong then. You can't say that a 500 is easier to ride than a 1000, it's like saying a KX250 has more corner exit traction than a 450.

If you can't take someone else having a different opinion without resorting to petty insults then we're done here.

 

[RC45]

The class limits are up to 1988, the 500 is older than my RZ. The 400 was made later on, but only by a few years, the RZ was one of the newest bikes being an 88.

I'm going to ignore that first part of ignorance for the sake of argument since you were just saying things without referencing what you referring to.

If I cared then I wouldn't have my age on my profile.

You asked for a direct comparison, I gave you one.

My 350 is completely stock apart from a mild port and removed lights.
The VF was stock, and the 400s were in varying states of tune.

I guess every GP rider and journalist is wrong then. You can't say that a 500 is easier to ride than a 1000, it's like saying a KX250 has more corner exit traction than a 450.

If you can't take someone else having a different opinion without resorting to petty insults then we're done here.

Again your entire premise is based in ignorance of the concept of PERIOD CORRECT comparisons.

Bloke, it appears I was riding the RZ350 as a new current bike 10 years before you were born.

I really truly do know what I am talking about. Try hold your mouth long enough to learn from folks with experience.

In the day on the street the 2t bikes where superior to their 4t class comparables.

You could not pair a 1988 RZ350 (which as a 1988 would have to be an F model with a full fairing) to a 1984/5 VF500 in 1984. You had to wait until 1988 yeah? By which time the VF500 was now obsolete - and the CBR600 Aero was the middle weight king. Note how the 4t continued development while the t2 did not???????

BTW I will again state these FACTS.

The only reason a 4t MotoGP bikes APPEARS docile compared to a 2t is the management systems.

To say anything else is pure ignorance of the facts.

Without the electronic management systems a 4t MotoGP bike would be as difficult to ride as an unmanaged 500cc 2t. Although if you knew half as much as you thought you did you would have known that the 500 2t had also begun to receive complex electronic management systems by the time they where retired and in 2002 the 500cc 2t GP bike was much easier to ride on the limits than the late 1980's monsters.

 

[Slash]

@Bopop4 I think 4 strokes have the edge in the woods. You need low end torque.

 

[Bopop4]

@Bopop4 I think 4 strokes have the edge in the woods. You need low end torque.

It's all preference, some people like the low end, but many still ride two strokes because in tight woods you don't need all that power, and the lower weight can help.

RC, it's clear that you have no interest in continuing an intelligent discussion, instead repeating the same things over and over again in the light of proven facts.
Your blind fanaticism is just down right annoying now, ride some modern bikes before you disregard them.

 

[Slash]

It's a lot easier on hills in stuff with a well balanced 4, at least in my opinion. Especially from a dead stop. From a stop at the drop off in my back yard that I showed you a 4 stroke would rule.

 

[RC45]

It's all preference, some people like the low end, but many still ride two strokes because in tight woods you don't need all that power, and the lower weight can help.

RC, it's clear that you have no interest in continuing an intelligent discussion, instead repeating the same things over and over again in the light of proven facts.
Your blind fanaticism is just down right annoying now, ride some modern bikes before you disregard them.

What blind fanaticism? Ride some modern bikes? Are you kidding me? I have ridden more different 4t sport bikes in my life than you even knew existed.

I have pointed out how your lack of real riding experience and knowledge of the bikes in question in CONTEXT is apparent.

You have failed to acknowledge and recognize the FACTUAL content of this statement of FACT I have made:

• The only reason a 4t MotoGP bikes APPEARS docile compared to a 2t is the management systems.

• To say anything else is pure ignorance of the facts.

• Without the electronic management systems (traction control/engine management/electronic throttle/anti-lock brakes/anti-wheelie control etc) a 4t MotoGP bike would be as difficult to ride as an unmanaged 500cc 2t.

Please - dispute the above statements. You can't can you?

You cannot. How do I know you cannot?

I have in fact ridden a number of 4t street and race bikes from the late 90's and early 2000's with close to 160rwhp on tap. when they where new and current.

I have also ridden some brand new modern track bikes over the last 3 years that have similar power AND electronic aids.

The newer bikes are faster - anyone with an IQ above room temp would know this - it is bloody obvious. The ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY is the reason.

Nobody is disputing this fact.

Rather this fact PROVES the statement that if not for technology, modern 4t race bikes would be no more rideable than 2t counterparts.

You really do carry your age and inexperience on your sleeve with pride - take a breath and you might even learn something one day. You do not know it all.

And again - the OP is correct in 1 respect - modern street 4t 125's are pathetic compared to street 2t 125's.

 

[Bopop4]

I'm not going to repeat what I've said for the 3rd time now. If you can find a shred of evidence that says a 500 is easier to control then be my guest to post it and have someone else quote it, because you're the first person to go on my ignore list.

I like your bike and your car, but you come off as extremely immature, like yelling louder to make a point more valid.

 

[Tornado]

but you come off as extremely immature, like yelling louder to make a point more valid.

For a real hoot, ask him about gun rights.