The more I ride my 2011 TXC 449 the more in love I am with the CST. Just started to ride the mountains and can't believe how this system eats up the nasties and how much smoother it is due to the lack of chain torque. Can't wait to see how good it is going to be after a tuner does his magic! I was thinking that this would really improve the traction characteristics of the two stroke also and give it a huge advantage over the traditional design. Is the CST here to stay and do you think it is going to make it onto other models ?
No but wish it was. (guess). I too am loving my TE511 and CTS, love pounding out miles on that beast.
I wonder if cts is better for big bore 4 strokes than small bore 2 stroke where you want it to break loose to keep it in powerband. I almost like a half worn out tire on my cr144 better than new.
This does not look like much and the wide angle almost makes it look flat but this is a good long climb and loose. The CTS loves this stuff and the smooth but big power of the 511 eats it up to. The 511 is a master at this kind of crap. Loves loose messy terrain. http://motosportz.smugmug.com/gallery/23866075_qR7rwK#!i=1937115524&k=N35b94x&lb=1&s=A
When was that ride at GP? I think climbing Bishops ridge would be the ultimate test for the CST. How far up can you get now ?
That's the rear suspension type (bmw) on the 449 and 511 Huskies ... The FS is mounted in such as way that the swing arm bolt goes through the FS ... No more super-duper slack rear chains for these bikes ...
Yep, keep chain consistent and does not load the swingarm as much. Feels very connected not having chain slack / whip. Rear wheels seems to follow the ground much better and the bike is very planted. Also seems to make the chain and sprockets last longer.
I can see that but it has been tried before and they went back to the older way. Seems that you can't get the suspension to stiffen up while accellerating like you can with the older way. Helps off jumps and makes the rear squat a bit coming out of corners. Sort of like the anti dive front ends. Works great on downhills but hard to get the bike to setup for corners if the front won't dive. I can see how the Swingarm pilot mounted countershaft sprocket can probably be made to work though.
I find it works great and have no issues with it. Russ feels the same way. i ahve yet to hear a customer who bought one say anything bad about it and the bikes get constant mention of how good they hook up. IMHO it works and is a step forward. I would love to try it on a 2 stroke.
The only thing I've heard about it and I didn't consider this a negative or a positive, was that it had a different feel when you blip the throttle when preloading to clear an obstacle and for an old timer with hard wired timing it felt awkward. I think this is what Vinduro is referring to the stiffening of the suspension while accelerating. I'll never know unless they put it on a 2 stroke because I'm 0% interested in riding a 4 stroke.
it's not feasible on a 2-stroke. due to the high relative speeds inside the crankshaft-mounted clutch, you need a lot of oil to get the heat out of the (slipping) clutch. in the 449 engine, the clutch is lubricated through the crankshaft. in a two-stroke engine, you can't do that. r
It has always been a problem with a torque-less rear suspension that you don't get the torque preloading of the rear end as you do with a normal drive. You get a rear end that follows the ground better, but you also get different handling. A swing arm pivot drive shock will also use about 33% less rebound damping than normal. As lankydoug suggested, many riders are hard wired to using the torque reaction of the rear end to make the bike do things like a simple ditch jump or seat bounce. The BMW had no torque reaction and no linkage, so it seems to have been even harder for the top WEC riders to come to terms with. The Husky CST was supposed to have helped with some of that, but there still seems to be a slight issue. A rider like Motosportz may not notice it near as much because he's spent a lot of time on a ATK with the torque eliminator, which makes it act like it has a swing arm pivot counter shaft drive. If you rode a big 4T that produces huge torque like David Knight was use to, it was probably a big deal. The more torque an engine produces, the more effect as rear suspension like that will have on the handling of the bike. I guess that's why Knight couldn't come to terms with it. Some riders, like U-haul, run their 250 2T's a little fat on the jetting so the rear suspension stays looser. That may be why he had the least trouble with the BMW, then some success with the Husky CST. With that in mind, a 125 2T should have about zero negative effects from a swing arm pivot driven system because it's low torque output. There should also be huge gains with the wheel being able to keep more power connecting with the ground. As you go up in torque output the more the change should be noticed, but not as much as the 4T would. Would it be a good thing on a 250 / 300 2T ? If the CST linkage system can counter the negatives then it just might be a good thing. But just keep the gas tank where it belongs.
I agree about the gas tank. I just don't get why is was designed the way it was. I don't know why they didn't make a more traditional tank that drains into the lower tank. No need for the seat to go that far up. After my first mud run there was a large amount of mud caked around the cap. Whoever approved that design should be demoted to grip design!
I've been watching and reading all the riding reports from the MX guys on these bike..not a lot of them but they say it jumps OK on the track ... That's real news to me ... --------------- Out of all the new fangled items on these bikes... That tank location probably has had the most downside results ...
