Had a few moments to spare today at the shop and got out the old scale. Decided to use one scale and weigh each end of bike separately. Heres what I got: Husqvarna 2012 TXC310 F - 110 R - 132 2012 TE310 F - 118 R - 135 2011 WR300 F - 108 R - 120 2011 TE449 F - 125 R - 145 Husaberg 2012 TE300 F - 106 R - 118 2011 FE390 F - 114 R - 130 2011 FE570S F - 121 R - 138 GASGAS 2011 125 SIX DAYS F - 102 R - 111 2011 200 SIX DAYS F - 112 R - 116 2011 250/300 SIX DAYS F - 119 R - 123 With my method I did not get exact weight, but a good reference. Later, Jeff Tasky
Hummm I was wanting to know the weight of a GG 200 and I see it is a good bit lighter than their 250/300. I was told it was only about 4-5 pound lighter but that sure looks like it may be more like 14 lbs or so. What do you think/guess? Thanks.
Looks like the winner is the 125 GasGas and the TE300 Husaberg,I take it these bikes had all fluids except fuel.
Wr300 with old school frame and motor not to much heavier than husyTE300, 4lb's. The bigger GG's are quite a bit heavier
Don't the Six Days GasGas have a lot of extras bolted on like lights and skid plates and the like? My 09 WR250 feels lots heavier than my 03 GasGas EC200, but I still ride the Husky 95% of the time.
The TXC310 (e-start, EFI, skidplate, kick stand etc) is as light at the 250 GG, NICE the WR300 is the same weight as the GG200??? That does not seem right and i thought the WR300 weighed a good bit more than 228. I rode my TC250 back to back with my GG250, a KTM350, and a 390 Berg and they all felt like pigs in comparison. The X-light motor and that frame make for one light feeling bike.
It looks lighter, not heavier. Or is my math all shot LOL Dohh, nevermind, I can't read LOL, I missed the Husy without my glasses on.
I agree my 2010 TC 250 feels only slightly heavier than my 2008 CR144 Husky very light bikes. Sitting on a 2009 WR 250 and pushing it around the showroom it sure "feels" heavier than the split scale weights. I whish we had real numbers with all the bike fully fueled and ready to go.
Just thinking out loud...if a bikes wheelbase is longer or shorter wouldn't that affect the front back method of weighing a bike? Not sure but I would think a longer wheeelbase bike would tend to weigh out lighter using this F & R system.
If the surface of the scale is on the same plane as the ground that the end not being weighed the numbers should come out right. If the scale was higher than the ground the numbers would favor the top heavy bike because by rotating the bike on a front to rear axis you would be transferring weight to the lower side.
Just a scale on the floor, nothing scientific, I was just curious. All the bikes had about a liter of fuel or less. It was cool to see the differences between bikes that are close in weight with different frame geometry. The WR300 really feels light pushing around the shop. Later, Jeff Tasky
So lankydoug with the scale on the floor as Jeff weighed the bikes it would favor the taller Huskys over the shorter GG bikes? I'm just curious myself and would just like to know how the actual weights would relate using this method. Thanks Jeff for taking the time to do so.
One thing George noticed when he opened up the first crated TE 449 was that it rolled very easily (and felt light because of that).
If the the all the bikes are level when you weigh them it won't favor any of them. If the bikes are weighed nose up or nose down the scales would slightly favor the bike with the most weight high and in the center because you would be changing the actual center by tipping the bike. (the weight would transfer to the lower wheel that is not on the scale) I'm not really sure taller is the determining factor but rather which has the most weight high and center on the bike. If you took the bikes to a grain scale that the entire bike could fit on with a level approach and weighed the front, the back and the whole bike the numbers will come out exactly. Another way of thinking of it is imagine the balance point of doing a wheelie, with the front end raised to the balance point 100% of the weight is on the rear wheel making the front weigh zero. Now with that in mind you can be sure that all the different bikes will have different balance points due to frame geometry, engine placement, ground clearance, fuel tank location and so on.
I never trust the accuracy of a bathroom scale.....I have met many women who said their bathroom scale said one thing and my eyes said another!
I think they were standing on the scale backwards and read it wrong,,,,between their legs....assuming, you know, there was any visible space.
I weighed my bikes on a bathroom scale one snowy night last winter when I had nothing better to do. I put a 2x4 on lengthwise on each side and rolled the bikes on the 2x4 and across the scale to have the wheels close to the same place on the scale for an accurate comparison. Did this because on my bathromm scale if I lean forward I weigh more, if I lean back I lose weight. My WR250 was 236 lbs and my 07 KTM250 xcw was 223 lbs. Both have skid plate, hand guards, lights, and a rear disc guard. Both had just a splash of gas. Go figure - they revised the Husky weight for the WR250 and 300 in the 2012 specs to 236 lbs. And my ktm manual has it listed at 223, so I think the 236 for the husky is pretty accurate.
I think I will just watch how much I snack this winter and work out more. It is probably easier for me to loose 10 lbs and let the bike weigh what ever it weighs?
