My ATK does not have the torque eliminator deal. I do not find the CTS odd and think it works fantastic as does Russ which is why he wants it on a 2 stroke. It has a slightly different feel but is not earth shattering and everyone who jumps on my bike loves it regardless if they know what the heck CTS is and if this bike has it. But they do say, "WOW, that rear end is planted and grabs traction everywhere". I like what it does. I think the reason I don't have an issue with it is a ride a lot of bikes and adapt EZ, am not pre judging it and just get on and ride. Cory Graffunder is doing well on it was was flat dominating Garahan (KTM) on it at the WROCS race here a few weeks ago. Ran away from the firld and this was a tight off camber woods course with open sections too. (mix of everything) The bike is very good. Russ, i think the tank location has merit and why jumping off a TE450/TE510 onto a TE449/TE511 makes the older platform feel heavy and top heavy. In the East gathering this weekend someone just posted about riding the TE499 and was shocked how light and how low the weight was compared to is personal TE510. Like the Bergs mass centralization it make heavy bikes feel much lighter on the trail when rolling. Several good MX tests on the TC449 right now. I don't think any of them mention the CTS as a bad thing and they are all jumping the crap out of it. Said it is a good bike and closer to the rest now but slightly heavy and slightly under powered. BUT no slams on the CTS or that it does not setup for a jump. Also most mention how well it hooks up and holds a line especially in the ruts. I like this bike just the way it is.
I remember saying that the gas cap being there was going to be a problem when the pictures of the 449/511 first showed up and was told by many people on this forum that it was no big deal.
I'd like to see Husky have the balls to go all CST. Yes , it's different. But it takes little time to get used to the difference, if you will just be a bit 'open' to change. If you can't adapt, well, you may be a 'limited' rider. Everything has it's advantages, and disadvantages. To some, an advantage, will be a disadvantage. And, vise /versa. The problem is, far too many people with little, to No experiense with CSTs, have pontificated on 'the problems'. So many, seemed so upset, that their 'god', in DK, couldn't / wouldn't adapt. Read the histeria that comes to the CST, BM, Husky comments on KTMTalk, for example. The same histericals, never seem to remember the success, in very high profile events, that the BMW had - events where KTM would not put their better riders on their own 4ts. Juha's WEC / EWC placing, in E2, was the same, in his last year at KTM, as it was, in his 1st year at BMW - 2nd, overall. As I said, I'd like to see Husky, grab CST, as their 'USP', as marketing types put it. It works well, and can be developed further. Linkage / no linkage - that has little to do with CSTs performance - that's an aspect of the way the shock is 'driven' - yes, part of the whole rear end function, but Not the main thing. Though, having the advantage , through linkages easy 'tuning' of the leverage ratios on the shock, really does make linkage (or internal valving / circuitry in a non link shock) an easy way to give 'stiffness' to the rear end under acceleration - Much more preferable, to me, at least, on a dirt bike, than relying on chain torque affecting the suspensions action. Note, that CST, Does Not, negate engine torque effects totally on the chassis - you still have the wheels interaction / traction to the ground. Jon Ekerold won the World 350 Road Racing Championships on his Bimota. waaaaay, back in ????('somewhen', like 82?), but the CSTs of Bimota, were, neccessarily, 'after the fact', add ons - resulting on very Wide SA pivots. I worked at the Bimota distributor when the SB Bimotas had the Co-axial SA pivot frames - I think the HB1 had that, as well, as the Suzuki. Ekerolds, of course, was a TZ. I've used, on and off, for many years, my version of an ATK / AMP Torque eliminator - so, yes, I am somewhat used to the feel. I'm just, a slightly above average rider, I feel (above average, in that I can ride pretty well, with serious disabilities, that prevent me from riding with the best techniques), and I can go from a conventional bike, to a CST type, easily. It's not a 'night and day ' difference. That's why I'm happy to give those that either deify, or trash either system, out of hand, a bit of a 'slapping'. Nothing's perfect. But, I don't think Husky will have the balls to go all CST - I think it will dissapear. Unfortunately. It has a bit too much negativity, towards it. Put a full chain enclosure on it, so you never have rocks sucked into the sprockets / chain (much more dire a problem for constant chain tightness systems - on a non CST, you at least have a chance of the SA being pulled up, or down, to the loose point in the chain, so a rock may not snap the chain). BM / Husky, already took a page from Walter Kaadens MZs, with the crank mounted clutch. (Hello, Rasputin / others, MZs were 2ts, and had a Crank mounted clutch - as it could be read that your post denies is possible for use on 2ts - though, I think you may be refering to CST, on 2ts - remember the 2t ATKS? - and I use a Torque Eliminator on my 2t. 2t /4t, has Nothing to do with with it's use). A nice, full chain enclosure, as in MZ / Jawa, Simson Enduro / ISDT bikes, would be brilliant. It would, perhaps add a lb or 2 to a bike, though, chain rollers would be negated with full enclosure, but to have chains sprockets last almost indefinately (well.......)., would make a lot of people happy. But, I guess the looks, might offend some, and the few extra dollars that it might add, will offend some too. Sorry for the length of this, and how it may well not 'read well', I'm just out of theatre, and am a bit out of it, from anasthestia (sp?). Lah, lah, la, la la, la, la. Geeze I hate being put under - and to think people waste their money, and lives in feeling this way. I wanna go sleepy byes now.......
90% of the people who sample my bike say nothing about how weird it is. Just jump off and go... "wow, works way better than i thought it would. The motor is awesome and the suspesnion is nice and plush. this thing hooks up!!!" Oh and side benefit is i have never had a chain and sprockets last so long.
i didn't say it is impossible, neither on a two-stroke engine in general, nor on a 449-derived two-stroke engine. i was refering to 449-style "cst" with its existing (or "slightly" modfied) parts. if i remember correctly, the 449 engine pumps all its oil through the clutch twice every minute. that's quite a lot... there are more examples of crankshaft-mounted clutches. they all have one thing in common: they are ancient designs. the vespa "largeframe models" (125cc-200cc) have it, they sold hundreds of thousands of these. however, those vespa engines are tuned to incredible horsepowers nowadays, about the same power as a 250cc two-stroke dirtbike. special aftermarket clutches perform quite well, in normal road use, and even in "dragstyle" starts. but when you let the clutch slip for slightly too long, it will burn within seconds. now imagine that on a dirtbike. i don't have an opinion about cst, but if a crankshaft-mounted clutch is the price for a coaxial sprocket, i personally don't want it. r
A crank mounted clutch, is not required for CST. A crank mounted clutch, has it's advantages, and disadvantages, like anything else. It is no more ancient design than a clutch mounted on a gear shaft, be it the mainshaft, or, the countershaft - yes, you could place it there. You could also place a clutch, on it's own shaft. I've been around both crank and, of course, main shaft mounted clutches. I've seen problems with both. A classic whine from the Anti BM / Husky noodles, was DKs clutch problems. Well, he had them on the Kawasaki, and the KTM after it. And KTMs before his BM days. Look to the amount of riders that have clutch problems, in any number of events. 'Conventional' clutches - there's a hell of a lot of DNFs through 'clutch problems'. A crank mounted clutch, done properly, is no more prone to problems, than a mainshaft mounted clutch. I, you, anyone here, could trash either type of clutch, if you choose to abuse / neglect it. Use it properly, adjust it correctly, maintain it, and you can expect good life / performance from either type. A Question : Have any of the Owners of the BM / Husky 449 /511s here had problems with their clutches, that would drive them to Never having one again? I'm very interested in actual owners experiences. If they are duds, let me / us know. I've mates with them, and none have had problems. Have you, Rasputin, had a 449 / 511 clutch let you down? And, to make it clear, I Do Not own a 449, or 511, of any type. This is not coming from a defensive owner, but from a bloke with considerable experience with many forms of engines, with engineering qualifications. I understand mechanical engineering, and, I have a open mind on mechanical design. I've no favouritism for either type of clutch. As long as it works well, I've no problem what design it is. I've found no evidence of Any rash of BM / Husky clutch problems, and have seen no inherent deign faults with it. The oil flow rate, that seems to being used as a case against it, shows a good execution of the design. A 449 /511, is no Vespa engine. A Vespa engine - of the original type, certainly Is an ancient design - as is the whole engine / transmission package. No offense to Vespatisti - I and one of my mates, used to cane the living hell out of his Vespa, after the school day finished - along with a whole bunch of other bikes, over the years.
i wasn't refering to "ancient" or "modern" clutch design. i tried to point out (also by mentioning the vespa engine) that what worked well in the past might face some difficulties with today's increased performance. i did not judge neither oil flow rate nor engineering quality. i only mentioned that the flow rate is quite high (there might be a need to do so). anyway... r
As with most products, being the best solution does not always sell ...A product has gotta be marketed in some manner and then the public has to accept it and hand over their cold hard cash for it ... If the cash is not handed over, a product, ~any and ~every product in this category, will fade to history maybe before its time ... The Windows and OS/2 operating systems are a good example of marketing 2 similar products with one losing out that was probably the better overall product ..
I havn't ridden the new 449 but I would have thought that the new tank position would improve stability and balance by giving the bike a lower center of gravity.
Probably does give a lower center of gravity ...ever sat on one of those big hercin' huge 6cylinder bikes? All the engine weight is at the bottom and when you sit on one, you can actually move it from side to side easily and it feels like a normal bike and balances well ... But don't lean those past the tipping point or you'll need a crane ... Unless it has some bars or something to catch it before it goes over ....
Well, let's hope I may have contributed to your knowledge of the matters you put up. I put forward what I consider to be informative, accurate, if neccessarily simplistic, information to hopefully lesson your concerns. If you are loathe to take my word for it, as Crank mounted clutches being fine, do some further research. It may open up some new engineering vistas, for you. With others postings about the tank - I think the mistake is that of putting the filler, at the rear. A justifiable concern about dirt accumulation at the cap, ( though male into female, conventional location fuel caps are far from being a good idea, I reckon) but, from my perspective, a real pain in the arse in getting to the filler when your on your bike. I've a bad, and I guess, dangerous habit, of filling up whilst sitting on my bike, in races. I'd prefer the filler, to be in front of me, that's all.
