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 11-13-2012, 09:32 AM   #70966
motolab
Beastly Adventurer
 
motolab's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Oddometer: 2,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntm1973 View Post
Stator test: 80+ volts accross all three wires on a/c scale, doesn't seem to be a problem.
What is the exact resistance through the stator windings and from each stator lead to ground?

Regards,

Derek
motolab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 10:39 AM   #70967
Adv Grifter
on the road o'dreams
 
Adv Grifter's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: Passing ADV Stalkers in California
Oddometer: 6,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gryphon12 View Post
Weight dry, without oil, gas, or battery = 324 lbs. Older publications and brochures always quoted "dry" weight; some included battery (rarely) and fork oil (50/50).

Weight wet, full tank, ready to ride = 366 lbs. Trend since the early 2000's is to quote "curb" weight, but some mfgs still only use 1/2 tank of fuel, or no fuel but battery and all other fluids.

Consistency is tough. MontessaVR's thread is the most consistent accumulation for DS, Enduro and some Trials bikes that I have found - and I've been accumulating the numbers for over 10 years. Even so, I continue to find errors and update my data.
Good points!
So called "Curb weight" seems to be the latest term used. Don't think it goes back as far as 2000, least I never saw it way back then. Seems I've only seen this new term since around 2007 or so?

Curb weight, in fact, is a just another BS way to confuse and cover. It's inconsistent and inaccurate in many cases. As mentioned, sometimes tank is full, sometimes just a gallon of fuel. Sometimes no fuel.

I trust owner weights more. (if proper scale is used)

But its correct that OEM's listed dry weights typically are without fuel, oil, batt and who knows what else.

A basic DR650, according to MCN (USA), who actually do weigh bikes, claim the aforementioned figure, around 367 lbs. WET.
Adv Grifter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 11:13 AM   #70968
Adv Grifter
on the road o'dreams
 
Adv Grifter's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: Passing ADV Stalkers in California
Oddometer: 6,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by JagLite View Post
Actually model years for pre '96 DR's varied among themselves too.
Take a look at Zen Seeker's DR 650 History (scroll about half way down)
http://dr650.zenseeker.net/DR650History.htm
Keep in mind the weights are Suzuki DRY weight

So the New model '96 through present are a good bit lighter than the pre '96 bikes
Still, would be nice to lose a bunch more weight.
Under seat fuel tank, removable plastic subframe, better suspension quality...
The salient point is not so much the weight difference ... but the fact the '96 was essentially A WHOLE NEW BIKE! Funnily enough, the new '96 had a bit LESS HP than the old model. One reason: single carb vs. twin carb.

But the new Air/Oil cooled motor (using SACS system) was way far superior than previous bike. Next you can go to frame, suspension, CDI and more. ALL better ... and the handling is better on the '96.

As far as an "all new" DR650 ... be careful what you wish for.
Adv Grifter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 11:22 AM   #70969
Albie
Kool Aid poisoner
 
Albie's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Upstate SC
Oddometer: 8,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by JagLite View Post
I agree with you for the most part.
I like the simplicity of air/oil cooling and a carb for traveling outside the US. Or most places off main roads.
Since my traveling is limited to sunny day rides I would be happy to have fuel injection.
It is more complex but the magazine tests lately have been listing a carb as a negative.
On the rare test they might say the bike runs almost as well as one with FI...
I am happy I don't have any bikes that use points and condenser after all.
Even my '71 Triumph will get electronic ignition during the rebuild.

But, if I was designing an updated ADV DR650 I would make many changes.
As JMR posted, a DUAL RANGE tranny would be excellent, instead of a 6 speed, a 5 low and 5 high range!
Steel tube perimeter frame with one shock, no linkage, mounted on the left side of the swingarm/frame for easy access to the shock, lighter weight and with no linkage there is less expense and maintenance. And that opens up a lot of room for the fuel tank. Which is also the:

Removable subframe made of super plastic like the new, uh, Husaberg? Husky? KTM? somebody is doing it.
The fuel tank would be integral with the subframe for max capacity. However, I would also design a steel tube subframe with a separate (but still internal) fuel tank as an option for the hard core adventure travelers. Why not design for many options? Each buyer can set up their bike how they want. And, Suzuki makes the money by designing and building the optional parts. Racks, pannier mounts, GPS, etc.

The advantage of the under seat fuel tank is not a gimmick, it helps tremendously with lowering the cg of the bike and makes the bike feel so much lighter. A well designed underseat fuel tank, with the fuel fill neck going up under the false tank cover to the cap on the top rear of the tank cover could also add another gallon. I "think" it should be easy enough to get at least 5 gallons in an underseat tank that fills the area behind the cylinder, full width of the frame, and from the rear tire clearance up to the seat. With a side mounted shock and no airbox or electrics in that area it is actually quite a lot of space. On my Street Tracker DR I have no airbox or Electrics taking up that area, only the huge shock. That's what got me thinking about a side mounted, no linkage shock opening up room for a low cg fuel tank.

The engine would use a downdraft carb or FI throttle body so the straight shot down from the airbox (above the engine) opens up all the room behind the engine for the fuel tank. I would put all the electrics above the engine under the plastic "gas tank" cover and behind the steering head with a flip open cover for easy access. And install a LiPo battery of course. I would prefer the engine stay as air/oil cooled but with the emissions regs getting harder to meet, it might have to go to liquid cooling eventually. As long as possible I would want to keep it simple and not liquified.

I would use conventional forks, but with modern cartridge damping and dual adjusters.

Spoke wheels designed for tubeless tires too.

Lower seat height! with height adjust-ability.
Adjustable height foot pegs too.

.
.
.
.



Ahhhhhh, how I love to imagineer!

I would bet that if Suzuki asked 500 of us to describe the perfect DR they would come up with many similarities but 500 different bikes.

Simplify and add lightness is the old Colin Chapman motto, it still holds true for me.

Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion of carb tuning and oil preference.
And tire choices....

Lot of good ideas there.
__________________
Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun.

Another day, another foot injury!
Albie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 11:22 AM   #70970
neo1piv014
ADV in training
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Oddometer: 619
From the 2013 DR650 Features page on Suzuki's website:
"A comfortable seat, die-cast aluminum footpegs, and grab bars allow a passenger rider a satisfying ride."

Maybe that was the big change for this year.

I also saw the forks one somebody mentioned:
"Innovative cartridge front forks combine the best features of conventional and inverted designs, providing smooth and progressive action."

Then again, they still list the color for the Busa Limited Edition as Sonoma Candy Red, while the picture is bright yellow and black, so they're definitely not strangers to typos. Still, if they did give the suspension a work out, it'd be cool to see what difference it makes.

Regarding fuel injection on these bikes, there was a fellow on YouTube that mounted up a FI kit to his DR650. The company he bought it from basically did these pre-made FI kits for bikes based on engine size. The one he got was for 500-800cc engines (if I remember correctly) and was selling for not much more than the pumper carb goes for. He was having to do a bit of work to get everything lined up and fitted properly, but he had it completely tuned via a laptop that plugged right into it, and it was running like a champ. I have no idea how reliable it would be or how durable the unit itself is, but the company he bought it from was using his bike as a test rig to design an actual full kit for the DR650 instead of a generic 500-800cc system. If anyone remembers the name of the company, it'd be neat to see how they're coming along. They also did a similar kit specifically for the Ninja 250 that received a lot of praise.

EDIT: here's the youtube page I was talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/user/RCThirty
Apparently, the company is called Ecotrons and it's a 400-800cc kit.
__________________
_________________________
Ride videos
'01 DR650
"The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks."

neo1piv014 screwed with this post 11-13-2012 at 11:24 AM Reason: Added site
neo1piv014 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 11:24 AM   #70971
Tech23
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Tech23's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Location: Arizona Desert
Oddometer: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adv Grifter View Post
The salient point is not so much the weight difference ... but the fact the '96 was essentially A WHOLE NEW BIKE! Funnily enough, the new '96 had a bit LESS HP than the old model. One reason: single carb vs. twin carb.

But the new Air/Oil cooled motor (using SACS system) was way far superior than previous bike. Next you can go to frame, suspension, CDI and more. ALL better ... and the handling is better on the '96.

As far as an "all new" DR650 ... be careful what you wish for.
I can't speak for everyone but I wouldn't care how many ounces a set of fully adjustable cartridge forks and a twin clicker rear shock added.

Tech23
__________________
CRF 150/230/ Supermoto Conversion
2004 Suzuki DR 650SM

2000 Harley Davidson FXDWG
2011 Victory Cross Country
Tech23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 11:26 AM   #70972
procycle
Beastly Adventurer
 
procycle's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Location: Center of the DR650 universe
Oddometer: 2,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adv Grifter View Post
One reason: single carb vs. twin carb.
Twin carb?
__________________
Clarke's second law of Egodynamics: "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert." - Jasper Fforde
www.procycle.us - Everything for your DR650 and lots of other great stuff!
DR900 Big Bore Stroker buildup
TurboDiesel Corvette - go to the end to start at the beginning
procycle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 11:53 AM   #70973
Adv Grifter
on the road o'dreams
 
Adv Grifter's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: Passing ADV Stalkers in California
Oddometer: 6,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tech23 View Post
I can't speak for everyone but I wouldn't care how many ounces a set of fully adjustable cartridge forks and a twin clicker rear shock added.

Tech23
I agree ... and those are the type of upgrades Suzuki could achieve without a major redesign and only adding slightly to MSRP.

Give me the latest "big piston" Shock or KYB's PSF (pneumatic spring pressure) forks or Showa's SFF (separate function fork). These are the future ... and Ohlins is even further ahead.

But in my comment, I was thinking more of what a total re-design could mean. Things like underseat fuel tanks and eliminating shock linkage ... if not done carefully ... well, they could end up throwing the Baby out with the Bathwater!

Under seat tanks create as many problems as they solve. I've ridden MANY bikes with underseat tanks (G650, X Chal, KTM 690, F800GS) and only the KTM really felt like it handled well or better than my DR650.

And as mentioned by Kommando, the costs of Aux tanks and placement can be problematic. Unless the DR650 motor can get 55 to 60 mpg ... then carrying lots of fuel is still required for most serious ADV touring duty.

Plastic subframes may be a no go for anyone doing ADV riding and carrying a serious load. We're just not there yet, IMO. BMW rear sub frames are notorious for cracking and breaking ... and yet their bikes are 60 lbs. heavier than the simple DR650. The KTM 690's do not make it easy to carry 100 lbs. of gear either.
Be careful what you wish for!

I would be willing to entertain the possibility of a Linkage-Less system as it does save weight and cost. But even KTM have gone back to Linkage rear suspension on their top Moto Cross bikes.

Now why is that?

Look at the shock linkage on the latest BMW SS1000 HP-4. Look familiar? I'm guessing they paid Suzuki a licensing fee to use this design ... as the Japanese OWN all the design patents for most every linkage ever thought up. BMW have avoided modern linkage ... since forever.

The BMW item looks very much like a Suzuki product. See latest Cycle World write up on the HP-4, written by E Boz (Eric Bostrum). Amazing bike, by the sound of it.

But the Japanese are having some success with new linkage-less designs:
Versys, Ninja 650. Aprilia has dabbled here too. But most of that is about COST SAVINGS.
Linkage just flat works. Moto crossers (and later road racers) figured that out back on the early 70's. Anyone in current Moto GP without Linkage? How about WSB?
Adv Grifter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 01:08 PM   #70974
MADurstewitz
MADMark
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: Joisey, not far from NYC
Oddometer: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by neo1piv014 View Post
Side stand being up or down doesn't seem to make a difference. I usually notice it in the mornings when I'm trying to start the bike to let it warm up, but it happens plenty of times when I've just turned off the bike for a minute while talking with someone. The neutral light does work, yes.




I'll look up some how-to's on ditching those safety switches. I don't believe I've yet even tried to take off on a bike with the side stand down, so that's probably okay to ditch at this point. All the lights and everything fire right up with the key, and if it helps, I've also replaced the battery within the last month, and that didn't seem to make any difference.

Honestly, all of the switchgear on my bike needs a thorough cleaning or something. The turn signal switch is...gummy I guess. It sticks a lot and takes a few tries to cancel. The horn works once a week or so, and the kill switch doesn't like to pop back out once pressed in. Some electrical grease and an afternoon might be the cure for what ails me this time.
Sometimes the kill switch can cause this when it gets dirty. If you leave it in, moisture builds up in there, I think. I had this happen and now make sure the button is always out (run position) before I leave the bike parked. I had been using the key to turn it on and off before. The contacts might have become dirty due to lack of use.
__________________
MAD
(yes, those are my real initials)
MADurstewitz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 01:37 PM   #70975
wayno
Beastly Adventurer
 
wayno's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: East of KCMO
Oddometer: 6,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by procycle View Post
Twin carb?
Maybe DR750/800 had twins but can only find single for DR650
__________________
RIDE SAFE
Old but DAMN I'm glad to be here....
may as well Laugh
wayno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 01:44 PM   #70976
TRAVELGUY
Old Traveler
 
Joined: May 2008
Location: Georgetown, In / Costa Rica
Oddometer: 571
Great DR650

I just pray that Suzuki just keeps the current DR650 unchanged and keeps selling it for many years!!!! It's a great basic bike with many uses.


TravelGuy

__________________
TRAVELGUY
DL1000 '05 black
DL 650 '06 Red
DR650 '07
.
TRAVELGUY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 01:45 PM   #70977
wayno
Beastly Adventurer
 
wayno's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: East of KCMO
Oddometer: 6,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelguy View Post
i just pray that suzuki just keeps the current dr650 unchanged and keeps selling it for many years!!!! It's a great basic bike with many uses.


travelguy
+1
__________________
RIDE SAFE
Old but DAMN I'm glad to be here....
may as well Laugh
wayno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 01:46 PM   #70978
JagLite
Studly Adventurer
 
JagLite's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: Anchorage Alaska
Oddometer: 944
Cool2 New DR Dreams

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adv Grifter View Post
I agree ... and those are the type of upgrades Suzuki could achieve without a major redesign and only adding slightly to MSRP.

Give me the latest "big piston" Shock or KYB's PSF (pneumatic spring pressure) forks or Showa's SFF (separate function fork). These are the future ... and Ohlins is even further ahead.

But in my comment, I was thinking more of what a total re-design could mean. Things like underseat fuel tanks and eliminating shock linkage ... if not done carefully ... well, they could end up throwing the Baby out with the Bathwater!

Yes, there certainly is that danger!

I only wish for what I want, done perfectly. Simple, eh?



Under seat tanks create as many problems as they solve. I've ridden MANY bikes with underseat tanks (G650, X Chal, KTM 690, F800GS) and only the KTM really felt like it handled well or better than my DR650.

It isn't the answer to all handling problems by itself, centering the CG would always (I think) be a big improvement but the entire bike as a whole has to be designed correctly, not just as an add on to the existing. As with most things, a design is done by many and they don't always work well together. And a design is always the best compromise you can come up with.

And as mentioned by Kommando, the costs of Aux tanks and placement can be problematic. Unless the DR650 motor can get 55 to 60 mpg ... then carrying lots of fuel is still required for most serious ADV touring duty.

Yes, and that could be addressed by the factory with optional larger tanks. Once the middle space is filled, then higher up areas would/could be turned into tankage for the ones who like the Dakar look. At least in my mind additional fuel could be designed in from the beginning.

Plastic subframes may be a no go for anyone doing ADV riding and carrying a serious load. We're just not there yet, IMO. BMW rear sub frames are notorious for cracking and breaking ... and yet their bikes are 60 lbs. heavier than the simple DR650. The KTM 690's do not make it easy to carry 100 lbs. of gear either.
Be careful what you wish for!

Very true!

Too often a "NEW and IMPROVED" version is much worse than the original. Heads must roll!
There are so many types and grades of plastics available today and no doubt more tomorrow. The correct plastic, as I would want it, would be uber strong, stiff, but bendable in a crash without cracking. Is there such a plastic now? We use a lot of UHMW (ultra high molecular weight) plastic in our designs but I don't think it has the required properties. Just a future possibility I think for now.

One off Carbon Fiber (CF) laminated with Kevlar fuel tank subframes have been successfully used. But is far too expensive to make and sell. The layup schedule can design the required strength.

However, a simple steel subframe will be much less expensive and is easily repairable in most areas with any people around. For now I would go for the steel tube subframe with a removable plastic fuel cell that fills the entire area. With a bolt on subframe removing the fuel cell would be easy and allows it to be larger.


I would be willing to entertain the possibility of a Linkage-Less system as it does save weight and cost. But even KTM have gone back to Linkage rear suspension on their top Moto Cross bikes.

Now why is that?

But KTM still uses linkage-less (PDS) on the cross country and enduro bikes?

Why is that?


Have you heard the saying:

"Everything is easy if you know nothing about it"?

That's me.


I "think" it should be easy...


My thinking is that it is possible to design a very good, but perhaps not the very best, rear suspension without a linkage. Especially for a dual sport/ADV bike that may be ridden over any terrain, but not at racing speeds (usually!). It may carry just a rider, or it may be loaded down like a donkey. I want good suspension, much better than what we get stock now, but I don't need mx race bike quality suspension for riding dirt roads. I am very happy with my Cogent Dynamics rebuilt shock.


Look at the shock linkage on the latest BMW SS1000 HP-4. Look familiar? I'm guessing they paid Suzuki a licensing fee to use this design ... as the Japanese OWN all the design patents for most every linkage ever thought up. BMW have avoided modern linkage ... since forever.

The BMW item looks very much like a Suzuki product. See latest Cycle World write up on the HP-4, written by E Boz (Eric Bostrum). Amazing bike, by the sound of it.

But the Japanese are having some success with new linkage-less designs:
Versys, Ninja 650. Aprilia has dabbled here too. But most of that is about COST SAVINGS.
Linkage just flat works. Moto crossers (and later road racers) figured that out back on the early 70's. Anyone in current Moto GP without Linkage? How about WSB?
I agree that for racing everyone wants, and needs, the absolute best state of the art suspension they can afford.
As well as brakes, engine, transmissions, and so on.

I understand that the factories have to outfit their top-of-the-line street bikes with similar equipment in order to sell.
Even though the bike may only "look" like the latest race machine.

Remember when Suzi came out with the TM400 Cyclone?
It sure looked like the DeCoster/Roberts bikes.
At least to many of us who dreamed of riding a world class mx bike.

I applaud the factories for designing linkage-less bikes even if only to keep the costs down.
If they keep the manufacturing costs down, that should transfer down to the rider as lower maintenance and expense.

I want light weight at an affordable price. That means eliminating everything possible.
If it ain't there, it didn't cost anything and it doesn't weigh anything.
High quality steel tube frame with an aluminum swingarm is a great start.

I don't want a DRZ650 so I hope the factory isn't looking that way.

Eventually they will, maybe, come out with a redesigned DR,

I certainly hope it is an improvement on the current one and not a different take on the current Adventure Bike craze of adding weight, height, expense, complexity, and so on.
I also have a Wee Strom and will be selling it in the spring.
Excellent engine.
Too stinkin' heavy, too tall (and I am 6'-4") too much easily damaged and expensive "body work" plastic, heavy cast wheels that are fragile, hippo wide with the Givi cases on, and other complaints.
The engine is the only thing I like about the bike actually.

I am familiar with Ecotrans and their FI system.
Several, including ProCycle have bought them and are using them.
It looks very promising and I hope ProCycle will eventually come out with a complete kit for our bikes.

MXRob built his own FI system too.
It is certainly doable but I will wait and see how the pioneers feel about it next year.
A carb is pretty basic and simple after all and will get you home even if running poorly.

But a properly sorted FI that self tunes like the latest aftermarket systems....

OK, lunch is over, gotta get back to work.
__________________
Attitude ~
The difference between
Ordeal and Adventure
James
JagLite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 01:57 PM   #70979
Rustycage
Banned
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Location: sewer city
Oddometer: 3,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRAVELGUY View Post
I just pray that Suzuki just keeps the current DR650 unchanged and keeps selling it for many years!!!! It's a great basic bike with many uses.


TravelGuy
Slightly lower first, second and maybe third for me please. The rest is just fine.
Rustycage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 02:00 PM   #70980
Rob.G
Mostly Harmless
 
Rob.G's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: Fulltiming in an RV!
Oddometer: 2,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Albie View Post
There's a reason there weren't very many X-Challenge's produced.
Don't even get me started on those damn things. I rode with somebody on one back in March at the Death Valley Noob Rally. Damn thing broke down near the end of the day. Ended up being a loose positive battery cable. Not that you'd know since the freakin' battery is under the gas tank. And the stupid computer wouldn't allow the bike to be bump started because of the low voltage. What a horrible design.

Rob
__________________
'12 Suzuki V-Strom DL650
'96 Suzuki DR650
'10 Kawasaki KLX351S #320
Rob.G 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 02:07 PM.


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