Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Road Warriors' started by Ginger Beard, Jul 13, 2021.
In case nobody noticed a few varieties of the Evo Sportster are still in the line up.
Guzzi made 850s and 1100s using the big block set up, like the 850 and 1100 Griso ( I think it was 1100).
Gotta have something to run in the Super Hooligan flat track class.
The 1200 Sportsters do pretty darn good on a flat track. Surprises a lot of people considering the class requires stock frames and a lot of the engine is pretty much production stuff too.
Yeah that was the only real one I could think of and it was never sold in the US.
Guzzi did it several times usually in different models in the same years with the 844 and 948cc engines click here to see the table down in the article.
Harley clearly did it with the 883 and 1200.
Bultaco did it from the 125cc to the 325cc in sizes of 125, 175, 200, 250, and 325. I am not sure if the 100 or 350 cylinders fit or not. I'd have to ask. All had same stroke, only the cylinder/piston/head/carb/pipe changed.
Honda did it with the 185 and 200 four stroke two valve singles, I believe the top ends were interchangeable.
Yamaha did it with the AT 125 and CT 175 Enduros. Kawasaki may have done the same with their 125 and 175 dual sports too, but not sure about that.
Kawasaki did it with the KLX250S/SM and KLX300R between 2006-2019, heads the same cylinders had different bore size, bolt on.
Honda VFR750 and 700 and I think the CB550SC and CB650SC Nighthawks were the same engine with either different bore or stroke, I forget which.
Suffice it to say it happens.
Ah there was a Norge and a Breva version along with the Griso 850. Thanks.
I don't think I ever heard of the Breva version.
Those are all big-block CARC models, 2V.
I referenced the Bellagio earlier. That's a short run, one off. What's interesting about the Bellagio is that it's not just a smaller bore (which I believe is how they made the 850 CARCs). IIRC the 940 is a short stroke.
So the CARCs are like the Harley 883/1200 (same cranks, different pistons/bores), while the Bellagio is like the XB9 Buells vs the XB12.
I like both the latter bikes more as they add more of a performance/feel reason for the difference. I should add that the Bellagio was also more of a different bike than the 1100 Californias to which it was related. That's the one I wish we'd gotten in the US.
I didn't find any smallblock examples from Guzzi though. I mean unless you wanted to say V7 and V9 but they were really different bikes.
@Kevm Different bikes but same small block? Same model year? Not that it really matters in a Harley Sportster discussion though.
V7III to V9
Same blocks, similar/same frame, different top ends, different rear drive, different wheels/suspension, tank etc
V7 & V9 850's same motors and I think frame and rear drives.
But yeah we're getting off into the weeds and all agree now I think that OEMs have a reason to sell same bikes in different displacements.
Ducati did it with the 748 and 916, a number of the air cooled bikes, too. The current Scrambler series has a couple, I believe, although I haven’t followed Ducati much since the demise of my M750.
Man that front tire looks retarrrr..I mean ridiculous.
Man, they really put some engineering forthought into those mid mount controls. That's some work you can be proud of!
*Edit to add that I'm being sarcastic.
No different than the Fatbob... You soon get use to it after the initial fighting to turn it in.
When I showed this bike and the concepts to my (much younger and cooler) wife she surprised me.
The former airhead and two-time Sportster owner (now long time Monster and Guzzi V7 owner) liked the new Sporty and cast distain towards the dual shock concepts.
And though I generally find myself one who embraces traditional lines and designs, despite their obvious performance penalties, I couldn't help but also find myself in agreement, that perhaps, such folly would not be wise.
I await further reveals with baited breath
Baited? Then you should brush.
I think this is one of the best videos out there of this bike.
I can't get over all the crap all the manufacturers are sticking on bikes. That looks like there is more digital crap than my laptop has. I always thought it was kind of about riding, not blue tooth, ride mode, miles per gallon, multiple trip meters, and all the other button punching "something to go wrong with" electronics. I think my 700 has too many electronic gimmicks and all it has is ambient temperature (as if I can't tell when it's hot/cold/comfortable), engine temperature, gas mileage, two trip meters and odometer, and maybe a few things I'm forgetting - all along with the possibility if you don't remember the keying sequence you may suddenly find you're doing 88! You just punched the combination that turns it to KPH! Now how in the hell do you get it off that while wearing gloves and not stopping?
I have no idea what all that crap costs, but I'm betting it's more than an analog tach with speedometer that has one trip meter, engine temp, one trip meter (maybe two), maybe MPG. Make switching to Kliks a remote button or something like that. Then you get all the buttons to deal with phones and engine modes... How much does this stuff actually add to the customer cost? Notice key words - customer cost - not seller's bottom line.
I'm thinking the concept of a "forward controls sport bike" is "a massive departure" for sport bikes. What a wad of crap! What's next, forward control MX and trials bikes?
See what happens when marketing gets involved? You get what should be a decent darn near replica of the XG750R, that could be ridden down the normal (rough) roads in the U.S., something that would be crazy fun and hooligan-esque But instead you get forward controls and fat tires to jackhammer every bump up one's spine plus fat tires that do nothing to help. All in a cruiser layout that doesn't look like a cruiser.
So far the stuff I've read and heard seem to find good stuff to say, but really wonder what could have been with some suspension, standard foot peg position (not Harley's interpretation, which is still 4" too far forward), and one mentioned normal wheel/tire size. I wonder too.
It would be hilarious to see AMA put a rule in to make manufacturers use seat heights and peg locations of the most relative production bike they have. Can you imagine forward controls on a flat track bike.
I really really like the idea of forwards on an MX bike. Get the seat back down to 30" for those to scared to run a 37-38" seat height. So lets see, 30" seat height MX bike that still retains 14" of clearance. That means 16" from the sump guard to the seat. Extend the chassis and put the pegs out forward. The cool thing is that with forward controls on an MX bike, your inside leg already sticks forward to put you in an aggressive body position for turning!
In all seriousness, I think the execution of this bike and the PA are very very interesting and I have hope for the future. This bike was an EXCELLENT execution of a form over function (flawed IMHO) design. Now if they load a real Functionally oriented naked bike design in to the same corporate machine and execute in a similar fashion, Harley will have a winner just like the PA.