ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Bikes > Thumpers
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-17-2011, 09:26 AM   #25111
IdahoRenegade
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: Sagle, Idaho
Oddometer: 1,299
With regard to the fuel sloshing issue in large tanks, has anyone tried the fuel tank foam? http://www.evomx.com/fuel-tank-foam-information/

I'd like the big IMS tank for some of our longer rides, gas stations are few and far between in parts of N. Idaho. I'm wondering if that stuff works w/o causing problems for the fuel pump or level sensor. I'd hate to have to take it back out of a tank once it was stuffed in.
IdahoRenegade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2011, 09:28 AM   #25112
onetravdown
I can't ride where?
 
onetravdown's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: The garbage state
Oddometer: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSBS View Post
The bike's handling is hardly compromised with the larger tank either. In fact, it's exactly the same size between your legs and only the wings stick out at the front.
Again, this is not accurate. I addressed the handling difference in a previous post. But also, the tank is noticeably wider than stock. In fact, if you are standing and riding in technical terrain, your knees will bounce off the tank constantly. Make sure you are wearing knee pads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GSBS View Post
Then the weight is about the same as with the stock tank filled up to 2 gallons.
The weight may be close, but then you get lots of fuel sloshing from all the empty space.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rider_WV View Post
If I am riding very technical WV/OH singletrack I leave the WR at home and take the YZ. Its more fun in really nasty stuff. Hell I wouldnt even take the WR on our good single track with the stock tank. too bulky, too heavy and too much work.
That's great if you have a YZ at home and are riding local. Not very practical if you're far away and/or only have a WRR.

I'm glad those that have the IMS 4.75 are happy with them. But these kind of statements are misleading to someone thinking about purchasing one. It may be great for long distance or wide open spaces, but for anything tight or technical, you're going to notice a difference. Whether that be handling or ergonomically. It just depends on the type of riding you plan on doing are worth the compromises with the big tank.
onetravdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2011, 09:31 AM   #25113
onetravdown
I can't ride where?
 
onetravdown's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: The garbage state
Oddometer: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdahoRenegade View Post
With regard to the fuel sloshing issue in large tanks, has anyone tried the fuel tank foam? http://www.evomx.com/fuel-tank-foam-information/

I'd like the big IMS tank for some of our longer rides, gas stations are few and far between in parts of N. Idaho. I'm wondering if that stuff works w/o causing problems for the fuel pump or level sensor. I'd hate to have to take it back out of a tank once it was stuffed in.
I was going to get some of that before I found someone to trade tanks with. I hear from some people that use it that it works great. Others say they would never put that in their tanks. But I suspect they've never tried it.
onetravdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2011, 09:40 AM   #25114
skierd
Wannabe Far-Rider
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Fairbanks, AK
Oddometer: 2,860
Unless you ride like a maniac when traveling, you're gonna average the same 55ish mpg you probably do now, if not better. I averaged closer to 65mpg on the tat for a variety of reasons, mainly taking a leisurely sightseeing pace.

I get not wanting fuel up high, so don't fill it up till you need it out west. Towns are only 90ish miles apart in the east and I managed fine on the stock tank through to salida never touching my extra gas. Keep the 3.1, buy a 1gal or a 2gal jerry can in Oklahoma just in case, and bungee it to the tailrack for the western portion.

Keep in mind too that the tat is more road than trail, its about distances and endurance not technical terrain. Stop worrying so much. ;) you're not going to find 1000s of miles of singletrack track and downed trees, hell I went most of a week without seeing a tree lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SR1 View Post
Skierd, as far as putting it on "where everyone else does" (I already have a plate on the rear fender I could attach it to), I really don't want to have 1-2 gallons that high up. the side mount moves it lower, and yes, the "understandable" reason is THE reason I'm not keen on adding the Woflman rack. More money thrown.

I may just switch to the 4.7 gallon tank and call it good. (prepping for TAT next year, don't want to run dry)

General concerns are:
-I plan to upgrade the exhaust prior to the TAT trip and won't have empirical data on fuel economy with my gearing (13/47),
-Basically I have to step off an airplane, spin the wrenches to finalize my WR for the trip, and get started in 3-7 days (its already close)
-I don't want the bike to become topheavy because I put a 1 or 2 gallon jug at the top rear of the bike on a plate
---Benefit to this is it makes lifting the front wheel over trees slightly easier.
-I don't want to pay for the Wolfman racks, I don't see a big need for that expense.

On the other hand, if I add the 4.7 gallon tank (essentially just for the TAT, then resell it), ability to lift the front wheel may be compromised some, but it does lower and center the additional weight...

Hmmm...
__________________
"We wish your trail a long one" - Darlene "Sid" Dowd ~ Never run out of traction, ideas, and real estate at the same time.
2008 Yamaha WR250X
Eastern TAT 8/2009 ~MD-Key West-Oklahoma 4/2011~Maryland to Alaska 3/2012
skierd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2011, 09:41 AM   #25115
GSBS
FunHog
 
GSBS's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Location: Blount Springs, AL
Oddometer: 3,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by trav72 View Post
Again, this is not accurate. I addressed the handling difference in a previous post. But also, the tank is noticeably wider than stock. In fact, if you are standing and riding in technical terrain, your knees will bounce off the tank constantly. Make sure you are wearing knee pads.



The weight may be close, but then you get lots of fuel sloshing from all the empty space.



That's great if you have a YZ at home and are riding local. Not very practical if you're far away and/or only have a WRR.

I'm glad those that have the IMS 4.75 are happy with them. But these kind of statements are misleading to someone thinking about purchasing one. It may be great for long distance or wide open spaces, but for anything tight or technical, you're going to notice a difference. Whether that be handling or ergonomically. It just depends on the type of riding you plan on doing are worth the compromises with the big tank.
So are you really saying that you think hanging a Rotopax, plus the weight of a rack to hold it, with a couple of gallons of gas on the left side is going to improve handing over the larger IMS tank?

I never said the IMS tank makes the WR into the ideal woods weapon for single track or full-out racing. If I wanted a race bike, I doubt I'd buy a DS bike like the WR.

But for a DS bike you can take into places you wouldn't want to take a larger DS bike, plus still have the range and versatility and reliability of the WR, the IMS completed the package for me.
GSBS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2011, 09:48 AM   #25116
skierd
Wannabe Far-Rider
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Fairbanks, AK
Oddometer: 2,860
Ps the first long stretch without gas is boise city Oklahoma to Trinidad. 155 miles, made it on the stock tank... its also the first real technical portion with the climb out of phantom canyon but if the weights really bugging you it should be far enough in to dump most of the spare fuel in the tank. Ymmv and all that
__________________
"We wish your trail a long one" - Darlene "Sid" Dowd ~ Never run out of traction, ideas, and real estate at the same time.
2008 Yamaha WR250X
Eastern TAT 8/2009 ~MD-Key West-Oklahoma 4/2011~Maryland to Alaska 3/2012
skierd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2011, 09:54 AM   #25117
onetravdown
I can't ride where?
 
onetravdown's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: The garbage state
Oddometer: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSBS View Post
So are you really saying that you think hanging a Rotopax, plus the weight of a rack to hold it, with a couple of gallons of gas on the left side is going to improve handing over the larger IMS tank?
.
No, what I was "really saying" were the statements stating that the 4.75 is "exactly the same size between your legs and only the wings stick out at the front" or that it doesn't affect handling are just not accurate for someone thinking about purchasing it. That's all.
onetravdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2011, 11:41 AM   #25118
The Breeze
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Location: Utah
Oddometer: 199
SR1 - Tanks for TAT

My $0.02,

Just got back from a mini TAT (Utah and Colorado) and a full CDR trip. My intake/exhaust, etc. is bone stock. Twice I filled up the tank up, at the end of the day, and put in 3.7 gallons of gas (3.69 and 3.72 to be exact!). Ya, the 3.7 gallon Safari would have brought me in on fumes.....but I would have been stressing the entire day. Was really glad I had the 4.7 gallon IMS........worked like a champ Nothing against Safari tanks....I have the 9 gallon fuel tanker on my DR650 . It's not a matter of brand, it's a matter of capacity.

For what it's worth, I'd either get the 4.7 gallon IMS....and never worry about fuel, or stick with your current setup and get a 2 gallon bladder from Justgastanks and rokstrap it to the back of your bike (full on the longer stretches and rolled/stowed on the shorter stretches).

Regarding weight... if the Rotopax is full (+ the weight of the Wolfman rack), it's probably going to weigh as much, if not more, than the 4.7 IMS when full... If it's not full, it seems like a lot of stuff to be lugging around without any purpose. If I was dead set on a Rotopax, I'd mount it to the tailrack (I know it sits higher....but it saves you from adding the bulk/weight of a Wolfman rack). Just my opinion.

FWIW, the toughest single/double track/no track!, I experienced on the trip, was in Black Dragon Wash....didn't even notice that the 4.7 gallon tank/fuel was there.

I think that this whole tank size/weight issue is a matter of perspective....If you're coming from a 650cc dual sport bike (which I was) or bigger, the WR with a 4.7 gallon tank seems really lightweight, small, and nimble..... If you're coming from a 250cc, full on dirt bike, and ride primarily single track, then the WR with a 4.7 gallon tank seems big, bulky, and heavy.

For me, I hate worrying about fuel....
The Breeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2011, 12:20 PM   #25119
Pantah
Red Sox Nation
 
Pantah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: India Wharf
Oddometer: 10,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by trav72 View Post
I was going to get some of that before I found someone to trade tanks with. I hear from some people that use it that it works great. Others say they would never put that in their tanks. But I suspect they've never tried it.

Is there really that much sloshing going on in those winged tanks? I have a Safari and the wings are pretty thin. The only place there seems to be enough volume for sloshing is the top where the stock fuel cell would sit.

Seems a bigger concern than an actual problem.
__________________
Straight ahead and faster -Bo Weaver 1970
"There I was..." -Griffin Niner Three Hotel
"One day closer to a parade..." Jonny Gomes, spring training 2013
Pantah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2011, 12:25 PM   #25120
Cycle Sector
Aka Disco
 
Cycle Sector's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: San Diego
Oddometer: 72
Not sure if you guys saw my GPR Group Buy thread but through this week we have mega savings on GPR dampers for the WR250R'X's. Please shoot me a message if you are interested in one!
Cycle Sector is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2011, 12:31 PM   #25121
ironbrewer
Hopefully Riding
 
ironbrewer's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Location: Was in Colorado now in The Northwet, Washington
Oddometer: 4,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Breeze View Post

I think that this whole tank size/weight issue is a matter of perspective....If you're coming from a 650cc dual sport bike (which I was) or bigger, the WR with a 4.7 gallon tank seems really lightweight, small, and nimble..... If you're coming from a 250cc, full on dirt bike, and ride primarily single track, then the WR with a 4.7 gallon tank seems big, bulky, and heavy.

For me, I hate worrying about fuel....

I have to agree. In August I rode my KLR650 fully loaded with camping gear etc about 1200 miles around Colorado. It did great, but was a heavy pig. I picked up my new to me WR250r in Sacramento, and rode it home. It already had the IMS 4.7 gallon tank. I put on Wolfman racks and drybag panniers, plus a dry bag on top. I road Highway, slickrock(with the gear off), La Sal, Engineer, and Imogene passes. It was a great way to get used to a new bike. The WR250r, geared up with a 4.7 gallon tank felt way lighter than my KLR650 did without gear.
__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."


Pat Paulsen
ironbrewer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2011, 12:31 PM   #25122
DougZ73
Fading off.........
 
DougZ73's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: NJ
Oddometer: 6,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantah View Post
Is there really that much sloshing going on in those winged tanks? I have a Safari and the wings are pretty thin. The only place there seems to be enough volume for sloshing is the top where the stock fuel cell would sit.

Seems a bigger concern than an actual problem.
In terms of the tank and the sloshing, I can attest to the effect, being one of the guys that rides with Trav most weekends. When he goes form one weekend with the smaller tank and me trying my best to keep up with him, to the following weekend with his bigger tank and more fuel, and me actually being ahead of him in the trail..it is having an obvious affect on his riding.

What people have to understand, whether it be the fuel sloshing issue, stock tires or stock rear shock..what is fine for 95% of people that ride the bike, is not fine for the other 5% of us that push the bike and the riding to the limits. Are we expecting too much from our dual sport bikes....probably..but that does not change the fact that these are the bikes we have and what we ride, whether its a weekend of tight technical whooped out sand riding, or a leasurely 200 mile loop of dirt roads we could easily do in car.

The truth is, if we could have small light easy to ride MX/2 stroke bikes to ride in the stuff we do....we would..and we'd save the WR for the easier riding dual sport trips. But, we need the bikes to be legal, do it all bikes, and take care of us on the trial, but then do just as well when we have to jump on the highway and have the same bike get us the 50 miles home.
__________________
Skyline Drive 11/2010 , Catskills 2010 trip, Catskills 2011 , Southern TNJT, 2011
DougZ's MTB thread , DZ Moto Photo Bloggin' , (my) Learning photography thread, DougZ vids
- Ryder Joseph Z. , Born 11/26/12-- the next Adventure: Grayson Hunter Z., born 5/3/14
DougZ73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2011, 12:56 PM   #25123
onetravdown
I can't ride where?
 
onetravdown's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: The garbage state
Oddometer: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Breeze View Post
I think that this whole tank size/weight issue is a matter of perspective....If you're coming from a 650cc dual sport bike (which I was) or bigger, the WR with a 4.7 gallon tank seems really lightweight, small, and nimble..... If you're coming from a 250cc, full on dirt bike, and ride primarily single track, then the WR with a 4.7 gallon tank seems big, bulky, and heavy.
Sure, everything is subjective. But I came off a DRZ400s and an XR650L with a 5 gallon tank.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantah View Post
Is there really that much sloshing going on in those winged tanks? I have a Safari and the wings are pretty thin. The only place there seems to be enough volume for sloshing is the top where the stock fuel cell would sit.

Seems a bigger concern than an actual problem.
Yes! The IMS wings are huge and the fuel sloshes really bad. Enough that you are trying to get the bike to go one direction and it wants to go another. The Safari tank does not slosh nearly as bad as the IMS. The first ride I had with it, I was noticeable faster with less work and was more in control the entire ride. And I wasn't last.

Here's a side by side comparison I did a while back of the two tanks to give everyone an idea. Not like most of you don't already know.
onetravdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2011, 01:50 PM   #25124
Pantah
Red Sox Nation
 
Pantah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: India Wharf
Oddometer: 10,071
Picture is worth a lot of words...

Still doesn't seem like much volume for sloshing, but I can see now why I don't notice on my Safari. Plus that fact that I'm clearly in the 95% group. It wasn't always that way...

Thanks for pics.


Quote:
Originally Posted by trav72 View Post
Sure, everything is subjective. But I came off a DRZ400s and an XR650L with a 5 gallon tank.



Yes! The IMS wings are huge and the fuel sloshes really bad. Enough that you are trying to get the bike to go one direction and it wants to go another. The Safari tank does not slosh nearly as bad as the IMS. The first ride I had with it, I was noticeable faster with less work and was more in control the entire ride. And I wasn't last.

Here's a side by side comparison I did a while back of the two tanks to give everyone an idea. Not like most of you don't already know.
__________________
Straight ahead and faster -Bo Weaver 1970
"There I was..." -Griffin Niner Three Hotel
"One day closer to a parade..." Jonny Gomes, spring training 2013
Pantah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2011, 04:32 PM   #25125
HighFive
Never Tap-Out
 
HighFive's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: Okiehoma
Oddometer: 2,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by trav72 View Post


I think you've got to ride faster to stay ahead of the Slosh Curve. Like the Power Curve in aviation, its just no fun falling behind it.

You'll know when you're ahead of the curve when you don't have time to think about the Slosh anymore. Cause its just too far down the priority tree (you don't have time to think about it). If you survive a ride like that, then you are probably stupid fast.

HF

p.s. emphasis on stupid
__________________
'13 Husky TR650 Terra, '11 Husaberg FE390, '10 BMW F800GS, '12 BMW R1200GS
Terra-izing the CDR Bergs Over the Rainbow Texas or Bust!
Rocky Mountain HighFive The Other Side of Nowhere
Athena Big Bore Project WRRDualsport.com
HighFive is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 03:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014