Reading stats on thumpers for comparisons.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought this thread was about comparing available specs & to see & examine the differences, not outright comparisons, looked to me HC just used the KTM & KLR for example purposes, not as an actual bike Vs bike thing

Having owned a BRP, I was very underwhelmed by the power. I think My uncorked KLR has about the same power. Just more weight.

Sticking to the weights, what I am saying is that the measurement units in the figures you present are different, because you've got erroneous data from an unreliable source (and just to briefly mention power, the accepted figure from KTM is 40kW so your source didn't even get that correct). Yet you are accepting them as gospel and comparing them as equals. It's as silly as saying one bike weighs 343 whatsits and the next bike weighs 73 whosits, so the second bike must be lighter?!

No doubt the marketing teams of Kawasaki and KTM are both telling porkies to some extent. But you still must apply that liberality to the same start point, otherwise your analysis is inherently flawed.

Mind you, it does get my panties in a bunch when people (typically those not intimate with KTM) regurgitate KTM's stated half-dry weights as dry when making comparisons. It's right up there with the old gem, "those new Triumphs are made by Kawasaki, aren't they?" My local shop had a bloke come in the other day, pooh-poohing the 640 Adventure because "it had a 19" front wheel". Who knows where that one came from?

Hey, I like your approach here, but if you state that you're using facts you'd better stick to them.
Concept: 9/10
Execution: 7/10

Sorry, I missed this the first time... I think you've just made a rather neat bullet-shaped hole in your boot.

Well for those who the first post may have helped, just keep in mind some of the things mentioned when reading stats. There will always be persons who accuse and like to debate, doesn't matter if I posted my weight slips, or dyno results, they would accuse them of being false or just a fluke. Whatever, I am over it already.

Hopefully some people out there are interested in some good old honest advice and statistics.

As I always say, all the bikes out there are great, and no bike will run away and hide from another in its class. Its all up to the rider.

Hopefully we will get to ride together someday, somewhere!!

Dude, you really really need to relax. You're no more an authorative source of information than anyone else here is. I'm not saying what you posted is crap, but it ain't the oracle of all motorcycling either. Some people don't agree with you, they don't have to, this is a public forum and as such other people are allowed to express their opinions too. There is no moratorium on 'debate'.

Well said.

The laymans definition of torque is quite different from the technical definition. Even a YZ125 pumps out a respectable amount of torque......at about 10,000rpm!
The more you look into it, the more you realise you can't make generalisations such as "low compression is better for low down grunt", or "long strokes have more torque" or "60 degree vees rev better than 90 degree vees". Particular engines often break these generalisations, so it's false knowledge to believe in these myths.

A good tip for noobs is to not pay too much attention to the glossy brochures. I was amused when I found an old brochure for a 1990 DT175 that a friend had purchased years ago. They made bold claims like "torquey and responsive engine"oser , "long travel YZ inspired suspension" etc. Claims that go well beyond stretching the truth into flat out lies. It was good for a laugh.

There is alot more to low end power than what has been stated, flywheel, cam timing, carbs, etc..... Generally speaking though you do find more low end grunt on the longer rod motors with heavier inertia. You can pretty much take that to the bank for motorcycles anyways. It all depends on what you are trying to do.

There are things the stats hardly tell us:

throttle response
rider position while standing (very important for some)
width of the bike at knee height when standing on the bike (the F650GS for instance is a bad bike to ride standing up. It's wide at knee height, and the bodywork gets in the way with your knees)
general ergos, the pegs to seat to bars gemetry
weight distribution
geometry
geometry vs. weight distribution

just to name a few...

True! Like I have said before, I am not a stat person, I always read them for generalizing. But from friends, and observance, but most of all personal experience is how I judge a bike for a purchase.

It just seems that on here alot of people kinda throw the book(stat book)at others and say, see this will tell ya!

HC...stirring the pumpkin

Personally I think most folks have WAY more power than they need, particularly in off road situations. It's taken me years to realize how much fun it is to ride underpowered machines, but ride them hard.

The KLR is probably the slowest bike I have ever owned, yet I find myself liking it about as much as any bike I've ever owned too.

Specs and magazines provide little influence to any of my buying decisions with regards to bikes...there is simply so much more to a motorcycle than the sum of it's specs.

Well not really. I do see where you are coming from, and often it is true, but my point is that statements like this can be misleading. A good example is the pre '96 DR650 with it's long stroke motor, impressive top end power and poor low end and easy stalling. The later model had a short stroke engine with superior bottom end grunt and much better stall resistance, and less top end. The exact opposite of what one would expect.

So again, in agreement with this thread, the spec sheet can be misleading. A test ride reveals much more than can be put into words.

As danger_dave likes to say, "ride the bike, not the spec sheet."