Can KTM build a significantly lighter 700-800cc twin? Is there a market for it?

Discussion in 'Crazy-Awesome almost Dakar racers (950/990cc)' started by LukasM, Oct 28, 2012.

?

Would you buy a 370 lbs wet, 80-90 HP, 700-800cc twin, priced between 690 and 990?

  1. Tomorrow, bring it on!

  2. Too small, prefer the exisiting 990 and upcoming 1190.

  3. Too big, prefer a single.

  4. Not interested in a KTM.

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Bubba Bauer

    Bubba Bauer Been here awhile

    Joined:
    May 25, 2011
    Oddometer:
    156
    Location:
    Lower Mitcham SA
    Sorry this is going to be long I`m really interested in the why-s and why not-s of this topic... <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p></o:p>
    <o:p> </o:p>
    I have to agree with Lukas, and I hope somewhere somebody will be VERY convincing explaining why we need a bike like this to the bosses of a motorcycle manufacturer. For me a 1000cc 100HP DS bike is just too big and pointless.<o:p></o:p>
    <o:p> </o:p>
    Just look at what Rally racers say about smaller Dakar bikes <o:p></o:p>
    <o:p> </o:p>
    http://www.motorcycledaily.com/2011/01/dakar-2011-smaller-bikes-but-still-no-american-victory/<o:p></o:p>
    <o:p></o:p>
    "The new bikes are significantly lighter than the 650s and not much slower. “It is very comfortable to ride,” said Despres about his new KTM 450 Rally, “and very reliable and only an idiot never changes his mind." <o:p></o:p>
    <o:p> </o:p>
    So if you have a big difference between 450-s and 690-s there will be an even bigger difference between a 1200cc and 600-700cc bike.<o:p></o:p>
    <o:p> </o:p>
    If I stand next to any of the KTM twins my first impression is how HUGE they are. Of course they are V-twin that makes them as long as an oil tanker, and because u got 100HP to deal with u need longer, wider stronger=heavier swingarm, bigger wheels, swingarm pivot bolt, bearings bigger nuts and screws, stronger frame, cause it needs to carry more fuel it needs even more bracing etc. cause with each gram of added weight it needs heavier forks and shocks bigger breaks which pushes weight further, because it`s big as a barn u need 1 square mile of plastic to cover it with its own heavy bracketry. I think KTM did a really good job having them around 220kg-s look at the super ten 10-20HP more and 40kg-s heavier.<o:p></o:p>
    <o:p> </o:p>
    What do I mostly use my bike? <o:p></o:p>
    Commuting. A 990 would disappear sharpish in my dr650-s mirror in the morning rush hour. <o:p></o:p>
    Weekend twisties dirt tracks forest rides. The 2 bikes will be the same or at least I would be close.<o:p></o:p>
    Long transport sections highways straight open roads which I`m trying to avoid anyways the 990 would slaughter the DR, but if you want to go the distance for how long? <o:p></o:p>
    <o:p> </o:p>
    Look up motorbikin coast to coast race as an example 2008 2 950SE DNF cause they used up their tires and fuel halfway 2010 2 DR-s 4 and a half day 2012 Honda CT110P postie scooters less than 6 days Ok that`s extreme, but they did it!!!!! And before the orange crush team goes rabid I`m not saying they are bad or anything or the DR is the best DS bike ever just trying to show that 100HP and 1000cc is for me is too much and unjustified a 110cc bike hasn`t got the speed and power while an outdated old mild steel bike somehow had the balance to do 5000km-s in 5 days on all sorts of roads and terrains.<o:p></o:p>
    <o:p> </o:p>
    And before someone comes up with a “you have to have different bikes for different things” excuse... Why? A 12000-20000AUD bike which should be a jack of all trades should be OK for ALL of my biking needs. Look at the el cheapo shit heap old fat bastard DR. Can I take it down to a SM track or a light endure section? Can I commute with it every day? Can I throw it around in twisties, dirttracks? Can I do a lap `round the paddock? With some compromises on all fields, but definitely doable, yes you can do the same on a 990, but you don`t NEED a 990 to do it and I think you compromise more...<o:p></o:p>
    <o:p> </o:p>
    I just want a DR which is a bit lighter smoother better suspended about 60HP and because the Japanese manufacturers won`t make it IMHO someone in Europe should. Ok I should put in dual cylinder cause the 690 covers most of the "requisites".<o:p></o:p>
    <o:p> </o:p>
    Honda Transalp? That bike pisses me off no end. How the hell could it be 40kg-s heavier than the DR and even shittier suspension that`s an "achievement" in itself... In that bike I can see some corporate accountant wearing his cornflower blue tie saying that Yamaha/BMW sold such and such units of Tenere/800GS we should build a SIMILAR bike and some engineer says, but we can make a bike which is twice as good and the accountant tells him don`t bother we won`t sell twice as much so make a cheap bike with the same specs no fuck off to your hole and get crackin` make it cheap damn the pride we got some shareholders to pay. <o:p></o:p>
    Where are the GPZ 600-s which created the supersport class, the first GSXR-s or Fireblades or the first gen R1 the NR750, FZ750 I can keep on going, which were so much better than the rest, that it took the rivals 2-3 bike generations to catch up. They were unique and blown the competition away.<o:p></o:p>
    <o:p> </o:p>
    Kawasaki didn`t put the ER engine into a DS frame just look at how many people begging for it, the SV is still basically a street bike and the Tenere is a low quality components bike with a rip off price tag.:puke1<o:p></o:p>
    <o:p> </o:p>
    Japan builds similar bikes and not groundbreaking ones which is a pity... At least KTM/Husaberg is innovative and trying something, I respect that and for a small barn manufacturer (compared to the big 4) their bikes are exceptional.<o:p></o:p>

    Ok **** rant over I`ll shut up I promise. <o:p></o:p>
  2. geometrician

    geometrician let's keep going...

    Joined:
    May 25, 2008
    Oddometer:
    1,081
    Location:
    West-By-God Virginia
    so you think there is 120~140lbs to lose? The 2012 Dakar on the showroom weighed 499.7lbs naked- no crash bars, racks, luggage, no battery, <1/2 gallon fuel in it when we put it on state-certified digital scales made for weighing vehicles...

    SOHC makes engines taller. The heads on a 690 are so tall that in a V-twin arrangement it would make the engine splay out futher, affecting steering head & seat /fuel/etc location. It's already tight pulling the valve covers off a 690E, nevermind a 690SM/Duke. SOHC have more mechanical parts, wear points & tolerances that open up as they run... and they do- all the 690's I have done valve clearance checks on have wear on the cams & rocker arms, far worse than any of the DOHC LC8's.

    Where do you come up with "20lbs" savings? Guesstimating? The difference in the amount of metal is negligible. Combustion chamber design (which is limited with SOHC as is spark plug location) & valve timing dictate fuel consumption so I don't know how/where/what "far better MPG" comes from with 20% less displacement and the same ratio of power to displacement...

    Agreed. The Aprilia makes it power through spinning the living shit out of the motor- Less RPMs = Less Power... see below

    Honda, BMW & Triumph have this market covered- weight notwithstanding. But you can bet they worked on the weight all the time- they DO pay attention to the internet discussions, interview people at rallies, etc to determine what people are wanting/complaining about...

    +1 (to me) weight worth having

    The 690 has less ground clearance than the 9x0 Adv's and steering lock so narrow you think you're riding a Ducati sometimes :lol3

    It also holds less than 2quarts of oil! :deal:eek1

    V-twins aren't THAT much shorter than singles and they dictate frame layout... one could try what Britten did with his V1000 by attaching the steering head directly to the engine.

    I have friends/customers that have had problems with the skidplates being offered for the 690 which keeps some of them safe at home- not out riding...

    +1. Also the less oil you have the harder you work it...

    what in the hell is a semi-dry sump? :lol3 it either is or it isn't- and with any remote oil tank you'd still have the same amount of hoses, check valves, oil tank & location to deal with. So you lose the wet sump simplicity/ground clearance & gain weight...

    Single mufflers aren't going to meet sound/emissions requirements without catalysts at least, which we all hate and throw away due to heat/etc, which make real-world investment in the bike higher.

    7 bikes still require 7 engineering efforts (plus they have to work together which adds complexity/cost)... and 7 sets of bodywork & supply problems... etc. I like the idea personally but being in the loop of mechanical engineers/cost analysts I know what they go through...

    My fuel tanks bolt to the frame don't yours? The front aluminum bracket is helping holding the weight of the fuel tanks & supporting the entire bike in the event of a tip-over (they built the lower fuel tank guards knowing the impact energy was coming in that direction)

    I can't believe 450 singles even made it in to this discussion- :huh. :lol3 (nevermind a DR) With oil changes & valve clearance checks measured in hours (um, starting at 1 hour!) and piston wear that is atrocious (Vertex data sheet says 18~35hrs depending on use) they don't even come close to our needs. Plus you have to spin the hell out of them to make power. In a rally/race situation these things get components thrown at them all the time and get serviced every night. That doesn't make an Adventure bike :deal

    -----

    So the crux of the OP's post: producing 90hp out of a 700 (or even 800) means spinning it faster. Torque is the ability to do work, to twist a shaft. Horsepower is a theoretical function of time, torque & RPM's. This is why all torque/horsepower charts cross at 5,252rpm. See here. It's not just engine design- that's why HP increases MORE than torque when modifications are done- there's a limit to the torque you can make given crank weight, rod angle, etc.

    Torque is what gets the vehicle moving- and is why Harley-Davidson bikes beat the Japanese four-cylinders at NHRA dragraces every weekend. Your average street HD will beat your sportbike across the intersection and into the next block before you catch him & zoom on to stratospheric top speed (and redline). Horsepower sounds great when you don't know Torque is what we're after. I'd rather have more torque than horsepower on an Adventure bike anyday

    Example: early air-cooled Volkswagen's had a engine producing 33HP yet rated at 70 ft/lbs of torque. While a modern sportbike engine might be rated at 150+hp, it has relatively smaller torque numbers- that is because HP is a function of the crank speed. Think a GSXR engine is gonna power your car to the top of a mountain? It ain't- not without an automatic transmission or one hell of a clutch system!

    In summary wanting a 700-750cc 90hp bike means you've essentially got the same situation KTM has created with the new "150hp" 1190 Adventure- a bike that require spinning the engine to make its power- which takes away from the Adventure bike utility we're after.

    The Soap Box is now up for grabs again...:D
  3. Nowwhat

    Nowwhat I'll Go Second...

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2007
    Oddometer:
    5,699
    Location:
    On the Ground Laughing
    Hey Boss...450 is with fuel...so our numbers are almost identical.....

    The Fairing and Tower add a few pounds over the mask that gets removed...but it can't be an adventure bike without a fairing right....:lol3

    There are a lot of good points in this thread but also some vagueness as to what an adventure bike needs by definition...???

    1) A twin engine,,,,a thumper is a thumper...:D
    2) Wind protection...8 hours at 70mph
    3) Range...200 miles minimum
    4) Ability to carry gear
    5) Armour

    To the points regarding both the 690 and the Aprilia RXV:

    1) The Aprilia is a "never go more than 40 miles from the truck" bike. I have owned one...the remarkable light weight is due to the very delicate build...the bike is an Italian Beauty that needs to be treated as such...No protection...No range....no ability to carry gear...no armour...no reliabilty...no suspension etc etc etc...wouldn't last 2 weeks on its own

    2) The 690..Thumper...strike one...no fairing...two...no range...three...run it through a high speed water crossing and you will see strike 4...

    As far as well it is 2012 and so we should be able to shave 20% off the weight....someone still needs to answer where?

    The frame on the SE weighs very very little...Titanium?...bye bye budget
    Fuel weighs what...7lbs a gallon?
    Service intervals?...3.5 liters of oil...that adds weight...
    The LC8 motor weighs roughly 128lbs....pretty light unless you go with exotic materials.
    Lighter chain and sprockets....?...service intervals
    Good luck with a lightweight seat,,,,hahahaha.

    I want one of these 370lb wonders....just show me:lol3 how...
  4. Chadx

    Chadx my toot toot

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Oddometer:
    2,175
    Location:
    Bozeman, Montana
    Couldn't agree more. 90hp is way more than I need or want in a mid-size adventure bike. Weight, mpg, and off-road ability while two-up riding are more important to me. If I wanted 90hp, I'd just get a 990 and be done. 65hp - 80hp works for me. The 60 - 65 hp in a Weestrom is plenty for two up and loaded down and would be plenty for me in this class bike It just doesn't have a good trail-riding chassis that I'm after (ground clearance and suspension travel and stoutness for two-up).

    The problem with a lower hp, efficient engine is it's not "exciting". I think the Honda NC700 engine would be a perfect dual sport motor (as far as hp and efficiency are concerned. I don't know how much it weighs). It redlines at something like 6300, has a small bore and long stroke (to get good mpg) and in theory would make a great adventure bike engine....but would be ripped apart in the magazines because it doesn't make as much hp and isn't as exciting as the other bikes in it's class. I can still dream. In the minority, but still dream. :D

    I agree. 370 is pushing it (especially if that is wet). For weight, I'm good with 410 - 430 lbs wet with full tank. BMW 800GS is listed as 456 wet w/gas. Triumph 800XC is 473 wet with gas. Suzuki DL650 470 lbs. Make a bike that is 20 - 30 lbs lighter thant the GS, but with a good stout and adjustable suspension and a make it reliable and you have a new class leader. I'm OK with hp being even a tad less, but up the torque and maybe even improve fuel mileage to allow more range out of a small 4 gallon underseat tank.

    One final thought on hp....Good suspension and low weight do more for being able to ride this type of bike faster in rough terrain or dirt roads than hp. That would also allow one to carry more momentum through twisty tarmac roads. Cruising down the highway, hp doesn't matter. So why all the fuss about hp? Yes it's fun and more exciting, but doesn't make much of a real world difference in this class of bike. I'd rather push a bike closer to it's maxium engine performance most of the time, than run a higher hp engine at 1/2 it's potential most of the time.


  5. Nowwhat

    Nowwhat I'll Go Second...

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2007
    Oddometer:
    5,699
    Location:
    On the Ground Laughing
    I love this,,,,hahaha

    I always remember....Hp is how fast you hit the wall....Trq is how far you push the wall after you hit it....:rofl
  6. LukasM

    LukasM Long timer

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2006
    Oddometer:
    5,457
    Location:
    On a RTW ride - currently touring the U.S.
    Some good points being raised! Don't have time to answer in detail right now but I think you are looking at the weight issue from the wrong side.

    Take the 690 Enduro at 312 lbs wet, no fuel. You've got 60 lbs to go before you hit 370, where would you put on all that weight? Tank volume can be increased to 18 liters with no weight gain (450 rally plastic tank), how much are you counting for the twin engine, fairing (which I don't really need as I could get my own made out of lighter composites)? and beefed up components (keeping in mind that the 690 already shares forks, wheels, brakes with the SE).

    I don't want a stripped down 950/990, I want a smoother, slightly more powerful and more reliable twin cylinder 690. :deal
  7. Desertbilly

    Desertbilly Long timer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Oddometer:
    1,069
    Location:
    Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
    I'm also in the buy-one-tomorrow camp. This would be exactly what I would want -- with the caveat that it would have to be more reliable than the 690. And I could live with 400ish wet; but the 460 of the current middleweights is just too much.

    And I'm surprised no one has jumped in to this gap yet. I really wonder if any of the manufacturers have people that really ride in this class.

    Since they won't, I'll probably buy a Sertao soon. I know it's porky and has issues, but it's the closest to what I want, and I think I can manage the issues, as I have a good dealer.
  8. Nowwhat

    Nowwhat I'll Go Second...

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2007
    Oddometer:
    5,699
    Location:
    On the Ground Laughing
    Interesting way to look at the problem...but before we start with the 312lb number. I again ask what needs to be added to that number to make an "Enduro" an "Adventure"

    The 690 needs IMO:
    1) better seat
    2) Better lights
    3) A subframe...the 690 is already stressed with the fuel it has hanging over the wheel,,,add more weight= more cracks
    4) Fairing
    5) Bash plate etc

    Now add the twin

    1) More motor weight?...you tell me?... 20lbs?...bigger starter, gears, clutch etc etc,,,,25lbs?
    2) More oil
    3) More coolant
    4) Bigger Radiators
    5) Beefier Frame
    6) Bigger Battery

    In the end...I am afraid we end up 15lbs lighter than my SE with all of the excitement of a GS 800...:eek1:lol3

    The best answer for most is the KTM 690 Rally Raid....with some mild work to the head and a tune...and off you go...just keep it under 65mph cuz the gear box is all wriong....:lol3
  9. NKL

    NKL Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Oddometer:
    257
    Location:
    Kent, England
    But I don't want a viby single to do long road sections.
  10. Ceri JC

    Ceri JC UK GSer

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Oddometer:
    2,462
    Location:
    All over, usually Wales or England
    Sounds like you folks want an F800GS?
    :hide






























    With a bit of weight shaved off, a la the Wunderlich F800GS.
  11. KMC1

    KMC1 There is no spoon.

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Oddometer:
    2,992
    Location:
    Greater SLC
    I'm in complete agreement that the 690 (or whatever it would be) has to be reliable as a stone, I would rather ride a KLR than be breaking down hundreds of miles (or thousands) from home. I do not like unreliable bikes anymore than unreliable people. :D

    I think if KTM refines it a bit, maybe add something like rubber mounting the engine and a dual range transmission, it would be the bomb! The fuel efficiency would pick way up, get the vibes down and it's LIGHT. People are starting to talk about 400+ lb bikes now...SCREW THAT...:lol3 why would you want an extra 100 lbs? Just to have it be a twin?!? Ugh. :puke1

    A slightly revamped 690 with the rally kit and a rear rack is the ticket in my 'pinion.....

    If I wanted to take a passenger, and all that associated gear, etc....I'd just ride my GSA.... That's what it's made for, :freaky
  12. KMC1

    KMC1 There is no spoon.

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Oddometer:
    2,992
    Location:
    Greater SLC
    Exactly. :norton
  13. Bubba Bauer

    Bubba Bauer Been here awhile

    Joined:
    May 25, 2011
    Oddometer:
    156
    Location:
    Lower Mitcham SA
    You said : "I can't believe 450 singles even made it in to this discussion- :huh. :lol3 (nevermind a DR) With oil changes & valve clearance checks measured in hours (um, starting at 1 hour!) and piston wear that is atrocious (Vertex data sheet says 18~35hrs depending on use) they don't even come close to our needs. Plus you have to spin the hell out of them to make power. In a rally/race situation these things get components thrown at them all the time and get serviced every night. That doesn't make an Adventure bike :deal"


    Sorry mate slight misunderstanding I was not talking about 450-s as options as ADV bikes just as an example that less cc doesn`t actually mean less speed or uncomfort and even with similar engine outlay and similar purpose just 200cc difference could mean 5-10% difference in weight. So I think a 15%-25% weight difference between a 600-700cc and an 1200cc bike is not unbelievable cause with the new 1200 ADV IMHO the 990 will disappear.

    BTW 1 bike jurno and his mate just made the Australian APC rally on modified 450 Yamahas( first and foremost external oil tank built into the bashplate holding I think 3.5l oil) its 7000km-s in 14 days they didn`t change anything I repeat just as curiosity (more facebook trailzone magazine)

    I hope for a 60-70HP 650-700cc twin under 160-170kg-s loaded with about 18-20l fuel.

    I think it can be done. For example DR about 170kg-s and its engine weighs pretty much the same as an ER6 engine and there are plenty areas on a DR where you can shave weight.


    BTW I`m quite happy that the discussion is a discussion and not a hairy chested dick waving contest :clap
  14. cyborg

    cyborg Potius Sero Quam Numquam

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Oddometer:
    5,414
    Location:
    Pacific NorthWet
    As for engine weights, the only ones I know first hand are:

    RXV550 - 70lbs ~70hp
    LC8 990 - 135lbs ~95hp

    Squeezing 90hp out of a 600-700 is easy on a sportbike with the heavier/stronger engine components that spin to the moon, but would be stressing a lightweight (<100lb) twin engine the way the Aprilia 550's did (1lb/hp) so probably would not be long distance reliable/trouble-free.
  15. Schannulleke

    Schannulleke Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Oddometer:
    210
    The Highland engine was around 100lbs/45kg if I remember correct. Very high torque, enough horsepower @ low rpm.

    <table width="580" align="Left" border="1" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" width="25%">Power:</td><td>85.00 HP (62.0 kW)) @ 6000 RPM
    </td></tr><tr><td valign="top" width="25%">Torque:</td><td>103.00 Nm (10.5 kgf-m or 76.0 ft.lbs) @ 460 RPM</td></tr></tbody></table>




    Sounds like a good candidate engine if it could have wide gear ratios and good reliability.


    And as it would seem from this topic, the new 2012 690 engine could also be an excellent candidate with enough oil capacity and with the same 2 conditions as the Highland engine:
    - much wider gear ratios
    - better reliablity
  16. triplenickel

    triplenickel Long timer

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Oddometer:
    2,504
    Location:
    Campbell River, BC. Fantasy Island
    I think if it was so simple it would be done by now.
  17. cyborg

    cyborg Potius Sero Quam Numquam

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Oddometer:
    5,414
    Location:
    Pacific NorthWet
    - and magically balanced to be as smooth as a twin :getiton
  18. crofrog

    crofrog Long timer

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Oddometer:
    1,459
    Location:
    Annapolis Maryland
    stick a really really heavy flywheel on it.
  19. Night Falcon

    Night Falcon Adventure NZL

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2008
    Oddometer:
    4,024
    Location:
    New Zealand
    OK. I think the poll results and comments are pretty conclusive....so who's gonna phone KTM and tell the to get cracking on the build? :D
  20. kareblak

    kareblak Adventurer

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    Oddometer:
    83
    Location:
    Oslo
    I don't know to what degree my local dealer is in the inner Mattighofen info loop, but they keep assuring me that a 700-800cc twin is the next shit coming. Anyone else heard any "semi-realiable rumors"?