ADVrider

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-04-2012, 12:54 PM   #1096
Midlife
HalFassed
 
Midlife's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: Canton GA
Oddometer: 69
Awwww Crap

Now I want one! Guess I hafta change my poll response..............
__________________
STILL fun after all these years! Thanks GOD!

2008 KTM 990 Adventure, and a bunch of dream bikes in my head.
Midlife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 12:57 PM   #1097
wilmar13
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Oddometer: 512
Quote:
Originally Posted by LukasM View Post
The rim is what's special, standard hubs and spokes.

Can't go to tubed and then back to tubeless easily as you will destroy the rubber band.
I can't understand how it is a big deal to go tubeless, or that the method is that fragile. I have gone to tubless eons ago on spoked wheels for supermoto (the rims do have lips for tubless tire mounting but spoke holes that leak air).

It is super simple and very robust to go tubeless with some silicone, acetone, and Gorilla tape you already have in your garage... and of course a bolt in stem from any harley shop.

clean the inner rim with acetone(so the tape never comes off), spooge the silicone in all the spoke holes generously, wrap a layer of Gorilla tape around the wheel, cut a hole over the stem through the tape... then mount the tire and fill it up. The pressure from the air will force the silicone into all gaps and the wheel is good to go. Tried and tested up to 120mph all the time... just saying, tubeless spoked wheels are not rocket science.
__________________
'14 KTM 1190-R
wilmar13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 01:07 PM   #1098
Xtremjeepn
Motorhead!
 
Xtremjeepn's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2008
Location: SaddleRock, Colorado
Oddometer: 1,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilmar13 View Post
It isn't the weight of shaving material out of a cyl bore (and really the way you stated that is backwards as you need to add material to shrink the bore, but I know what you meant)... it is a redesign with perhaps more weight efficient architecture as Naven states...


But yeah, you are right, no way to shave any significant weight off without making other compromises to the rest of the bike.
Yeah, I wasn't talking so much about the actual material shave out as much as all the supporting stuff around it needing to be nearly the same.
__________________
Cole Ford<----my iPad app ...and iPhone version.....Android Tablet version

06 KTM 950 Adventure(The Fainting Goat)
FOR SALE 02 F650GS DAKAR
FOR SALE 2 KLR650s http://coffeemotorcycleswine.blogspot.com/
Xtremjeepn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 01:07 PM   #1099
LukasM
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: On a RTW ride - currently Central Asia
Oddometer: 5,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilmar13 View Post
I can't understand how it is a big deal to go tubeless, or that the method is that fragile. I have gone to tubless eons ago on spoked wheels for supermoto (the rims do have lips for tubless tire mounting but spoke holes that leak air).

It is super simple and very robust to go tubeless with some silicone, acetone, and Gorilla tape you already have in your garage... and of course a bolt in stem from any harley shop.

clean the inner rim with acetone(so the tape never comes off), spooge the silicone in all the spoke holes generously, wrap a layer of Gorilla tape around the wheel, cut a hole over the stem through the tape... then mount the tire and fill it up. The pressure from the air will force the silicone into all gaps and the wheel is good to go. Tried and tested up to 120mph all the time... just saying, tubeless spoked wheels are not rocket science.
I am not sure what your point is (there are many threads discussing tubeless conversion and there are better and safer methods than yours) but it seems you do not understand the system that KTM uses on the 1190 specifically. Go find my explanation earlier in this thread and then you should see what I am talking about, when I say you cannot easily put in a set of tubes and then go back to tubeless.
LukasM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 01:22 PM   #1100
wilmar13
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Oddometer: 512
Quote:
Originally Posted by LukasM View Post
I am not sure what your point is (there are many threads discussing tubeless conversion and there are better and safer methods than yours) but it seems you do not understand the system that KTM uses on the 1190 specifically. Go find my explanation earlier in this thread and then you should see what I am talking about, when I say you cannot easily put in a set of tubes and then go back to tubeless.
OK, will do... it was just a rant on tubeless spoked wheels being marketed as this great new thing, nothing about your post per se but will go look at the post you reference.

Why would anyone put a tube in a tubeless wheel?
__________________
'14 KTM 1190-R
wilmar13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 01:24 PM   #1101
LukasM
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: On a RTW ride - currently Central Asia
Oddometer: 5,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilmar13 View Post
OK, will do... it was just a rant on tubeless spoked wheels being marketed as this great new thing, nothing about your post per se but will go look at the post you reference.

Why would anyone put a tube in a tubeless wheel?
Because you can get a dent in the rim and the tire will not seal any more, or you have a hole/cut that's too big too plug.
LukasM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 01:31 PM   #1102
wilmar13
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Oddometer: 512
Quote:
Originally Posted by LukasM View Post
Because you can get a dent in the rim and the tire will not seal any more, or you have a hole/cut that's too big too plug.
Ah OK... well then I argue my method is far better because you can actually remove the valve stem and run a tube.

I did forget that you should put the continuous rim strip that is already one your tubed wheel over the tape so it will never come off at high speeds... but I can't see how it is possible that the expensive one time use "heat shrink" band is any better than adhesive tape and the plastic rim strip... it is cheaper and you can still use a tube when you tweak your wheel.
__________________
'14 KTM 1190-R
wilmar13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 01:44 PM   #1103
Mika_AT
Adventurer
 
Mika_AT's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: France (Bordeaux)
Oddometer: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpbarlow View Post

But we need a more dirt-oriented bike, so

I love this !!!!

Envoyé depuis mon Nexus S avec Tapatalk
Mika_AT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 01:51 PM   #1104
cjracer
AWD please!!
 
cjracer's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Location: Mukwonago, WI
Oddometer: 3,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noto View Post
So.. the bashed in header of the 1190 R (picture 9 in that collection)... is that factory standard ?

That's great. I think it's called a "Performance Dent".
__________________
My 2006 950S thread. 2006 950s update
New product updates here! Wordpress BLOG
click www.cjdesignsllc.com for the full line of products. FREE STUFF!!
cjracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 02:02 PM   #1105
HappyGoLucky
Goeie Grys Giftige Gert!
 
HappyGoLucky's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Displaced.ment
Oddometer: 4,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mika_AT View Post
I love this !!!!
Absolutely. I'd pony up for one of those. Minus ceramic discs of course (etc)
__________________
To thine own self be true....
HappyGoLucky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 02:13 PM   #1106
Sumi
Beastly Adventurer
 
Sumi's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Location: Hungary
Oddometer: 1,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Navin View Post
The LC-8 can get lighter. KTM ran SOHC till 2007 in 450 MX, they have again returned to that in 2013. The 990 engine doesn't spin fast enough to necessitate DOHCs. The engine hasn't seen a real update since it was designed and alot can be trimmed down, dropping rotating mass and making it more nimble too. Cases can be cast as the new bikes are too. 20 lbs. could be knocked off the engine alone IMO. The current LC-8 engine is a tank. Awesome in 2003, not so much today. A remote and perhaps plastic oil tank could have been used too. Wouldn't that be nice?

Here is a thought. Husaberg 70 degree style parallel twin, SOHC and conventional or trellis frame. Two EXC450 cylinders/heads tuned to 85 EPA HP. Airfilter trapped in tank with TOOL-LESS ACCESS!!!!! (the way a KTM should be!) Fuel tank cast to span the top of the bike from steering head to rear fender, dipping down to underseat area. Thin, light, totally different and the crank location changes the dynamic of the entire machine. Ride a Burg and you'll understand!

Moose, I'm betting that ain't even close, right?
The (9x0) LC8 is already the lightest engine in its class (about 57kgs - 125 lbs if I remember correctly), and rotating masses are also kept at a very minimum level.. Thats why it revs so freely + don't really like anything below 3-4k rpm..
__________________
2005.5 950 Adventure (with 265mm travel suspension)
Sumi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 02:37 PM   #1107
Navin
Beastly Adventurer
 
Navin's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Oddometer: 7,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumi View Post
The (9x0) LC8 is already the lightest engine in its class (about 57kgs - 125 lbs if I remember correctly), and rotating masses are also kept at a very minimum level.. Thats why it revs so freely + don't really like anything below 3-4k rpm..

So development stops at conception???

Other than addin FI which was a basic, bolt on affair and reliability updates, it hasn't changed, has it?

Do you concede that a new SOHC head would shave rotating mass? Delete a pair of cams and the gear drive, thats significant. That the cases can be far lighter? Check out the rest of the line, the EXC lost huge weight just from the new cast cases. The LC-8 could lose twice that if not more. That a remote oil tank could be lighter and located AWAY from rock strikes? That the rider ergos could be better?
Navin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 02:43 PM   #1108
wilmar13
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Oddometer: 512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumi View Post
The (9x0) LC8 is already the lightest engine in its class (about 57kgs - 125 lbs if I remember correctly), and rotating masses are also kept at a very minimum level.. Thats why it revs so freely + don't really like anything below 3-4k rpm..
Still room for improvement... I mean just for comparison the SXV 550 v-twin weighs 70lbs with transmission (you can carry it around in your arms, it is almost comical how light it is) and puts out 70hp at the WHEEL! This is a DOHC v-twin too, which isn't the lightest way to design a two cyl engine... a couple tweaks to improve the sealing areas internally and add some piston skirt for more stability and you have a reliable engine with two stroke power density... No reason KTM can't raise the bar from the mark set by the LC8 and create a 100lb robust powerplant.
__________________
'14 KTM 1190-R
wilmar13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 02:59 PM   #1109
gbx2001
Geophiz
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Location: Harperville, Canuckland
Oddometer: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilmar13 View Post
Still room for improvement... I mean just for comparison the SXV 550 v-twin weighs 70lbs with transmission (you can carry it around in your arms, it is almost comical how light it is) and puts out 70hp at the WHEEL! This is a DOHC v-twin too, which isn't the lightest way to design a two cyl engine... a couple tweaks to improve the sealing areas internally and add some piston skirt for more stability and you have a reliable engine with two stroke power density... No reason KTM can't raise the bar from the mark set by the LC8 and create a 100lb robust powerplant.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I recall the 550 V-twin as having horrendously frequent maintenance intervals, which would be a deal breaker for me. I do very much like the basic idea of a lightweight V-twin, but am willing to have it weigh an extra 10 pounds for greater reliability.

I would like to see a (minimum) 100,000 mile V-twin engine, with little maintenance required beyond infrequent oil, filter, plug, clutch plate changes etc. I much prefer riding bikes to fixing them / performing maintenance on them.

Cheers.
gbx2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 03:25 PM   #1110
Schannulleke
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Oddometer: 208
Yes I think the current LC8 can be made lighter.

Also compare it with the Highland 950 anno 2003. 20kg lighter and 13 hp less than the SE, but still a 950cc engine. Then drop the displacement, optimize the entire bike and imagine what 790cc platform KTM could hypothetically release in 2015...

I would buy an SE that is 20kg lighter, even at the cost of some hp.
Schannulleke 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 05:40 AM.


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