WR 450 F for enduro riding?



69 replies to this topic
  • MidlifeCrisisGuy

Posted September 03, 2013 - 04:24 PM

#41

All this talk about weight weight!  I am 240lbs. I think I will work on me first.

 

Its not about lightening the rider and bike combo, its about lightening the bike so it is more flickable and easier to manhandle when it comes to that.

 

There is a huge difference between a 260 pound bike, a 250 pound bike, a 240 pound bike and a 225 pound bike.  And the lighter the rider is the harder he has to work relatively to ride a heavier bike. 



  • XTBob

Posted September 04, 2013 - 04:50 AM

#42

Yes you are so right about a lighter bike. That is why I like my WR for the rough stuff and sand and not the ST.

But then the 260 seems very light compared to 575. You should add 50lbs to the bike, go out and ride hard then take it off and that 250lb bike will seem effortless.

 

I guess to each his own. I will never be getting air or going to extreme trails. so for me a diet is a better option.

Your quest to get the grams off is interesting so keep at it.  It is interesting follow this.



  • 080

Posted September 04, 2013 - 05:10 AM

#43

 That is why I like my WR for the rough stuff and sand and not the ST.

 

 

WR is built for the singletrack, what are talking about..........



  • MidlifeCrisisGuy

Posted September 04, 2013 - 08:34 AM

#44

WR is built for the singletrack, what are talking about..........

 

+1.



  • Parx_400

Posted September 05, 2013 - 10:59 AM

#45

The WR450 is great for most off road riding. I love mine in the wide open dez. 

 

The only place I would want a different bike is super tight single track. Now that I live up in sac instead of San Diego I'm thinking about getting a 01 or 02 wr250. Those ones can be made with in 5 pounds of the yz pretty easy since they are kick only. Lots of super tight trails up in the foothills where the 450 is kinda heavy. Plus mine is geared for dez / dual sport. 

 

 

If you can only have 1 bike the 450 is the better option. 



  • Krannie McKranface

Posted September 05, 2013 - 03:27 PM

#46

You can put a WR transmission in a YZ if you are obsessed with weight.

 

Mine weighs 266 wet (3.2gal)



  • MidlifeCrisisGuy

Posted September 05, 2013 - 08:31 PM

#47

You can put a WR transmission in a YZ if you are obsessed with weight.

 

Mine weighs 266 wet (3.2gal)

 

3.2 gal x 6.35 pounds per gallon (91 octane) = 20.32 pounds of fuel.

 

266 - 20.32 = 246 pounds, dry.

 

Right now my WR weighs 244 pounds and I have about 8 more pounds of weight reductions planned.

 

By the time you add the necessities to a YZ you can get a bike of the same weight from a WR by removing all the unnecessary stuff.   After all, the WR450 is a YZ250F with an ex, detuned YZ450F engine in it. 

 

If you wanted, you could literally buy a YZ250F and put the parts from it on the WR450 chassis.  And some of the things that weigh more on a WR450F are a good thing, like larger radiators for example.  Another example is that the valve cover breather connects into the air box rather than being open on the frame where it could draw in water during a deep creek crossing.  To say nothing of having EFI and an alternator for powering high output lights if you need them.

 

Some of the things you get with WR450 that you don't get with the YZ is the wide ratio transmission, an engine tuned for woods riding and suspension that is tuned for that as well.  I don't know about you, but I would rather lop weight off a WR than split the cases of a YZ to install WR gearsets and trying to figure out how to detune the YZ450F and make it as docile and tractable as the WR engine is, to say nothing of the suspension being a mile away from what is needed for woods.

 

And then there is the issue of the frame.   The YZ450F frame is larger, heavier and slower reacting than the YZ250F frame, which the WR450F is based on.



  • o313

Posted September 05, 2013 - 08:50 PM

#48

Why wouldn't you buy a lighter bike with a 6spd WR Trans, fuel injection and better suspension? I don't care for orange so I bought a blue KTM (FE 501).

 

I am not bashing the Yamaha WR450, I just sold my 2007 but the new WR should have been more like the KTM XC-W's/Husaberg's. One thing that I don't know about the Berg is whether it will be as reliable as my old blue pork chop.


Edited by o313, September 05, 2013 - 08:54 PM.


  • 080

Posted September 06, 2013 - 06:09 AM

#49

Why wouldn't you buy a lighter bike with a 6spd WR Trans, fuel injection and better suspension? I don't care for orange so I bought a blue KTM (FE 501).

 

I am not bashing the Yamaha WR450, I just sold my 2007 but the new WR should have been more like the KTM XC-W's/Husaberg's. One thing that I don't know about the Berg is whether it will be as reliable as my old blue pork chop.

 

The 6-spd tranny is about all its short of compared to the KTM but due to the gearing ratio the top speed is not to far off between the two. The Wr is fuel injected and the suspension is better than that of the XC-W. Suspension would be better compared to the XC and even then the forks are much better feeling through square edge/rocky type terrain and don't defect as much.



  • o313

Posted September 06, 2013 - 07:54 AM

#50

The 6-spd tranny is about all its short of compared to the KTM but due to the gearing ratio the top speed is not to far off between the two. The Wr is fuel injected and the suspension is better than that of the XC-W. Suspension would be better compared to the XC and even then the forks are much better feeling through square edge/rocky type terrain and don't defect as much.

We could argue about the suspension so I will leave it up to people to try both but my new bike is lighter and still has e-start etc... I think the WR is a great bike but unless you do a significant amount of work to the WR it isn't in the same class as a stock XC/XC-W/FE/EXC.



Visit the ThumperTalk Store for the lowest prices on motorcycle / ATV parts and accessories - Guaranteed
  • o313

Posted September 06, 2013 - 08:07 AM

#51

I should also clarify that I was a carb'ed WR owner but I went with KTM since they build the bike Yamaha should have.



  • vlxjim

Posted September 06, 2013 - 09:30 AM

#52

I should also clarify that I was a carb'ed WR owner but I went with KTM since they build the bike Yamaha should have.

Well then it looks like you missed the boat. The new FI WR's are a different animal. The 12-14 WR is what I was waiting for. I too almost got a KTM, But Yamaha did a good job on this one. Its not everyones bike but its a WR450 stuffed into a YZ250 MXer with offroad suspension. I'm not racing so I need a fun, powerful, great handling, confidence inspiring, reliable and easy to get parts for bike. I think I just listed the mass-market for the WR.  



  • 080

Posted September 06, 2013 - 10:30 AM

#53

We could argue about the suspension so I will leave it up to people to try both but my new bike is lighter and still has e-start etc... I think the WR is a great bike but unless you do a significant amount of work to the WR it isn't in the same class as a stock XC/XC-W/FE/EXC.

 

First off define "same class" because you just compared 3 different class KTM's and by todays standard 1 rebranded KTM in blue trim which is comparable to the XC model. Like vlxjim just posted, this isn't the 07' model. They designed this model to be trail compliant right out of the box with the ability to make a couple mods to get it race worthy (best of both worlds). Suspension on the WR is comparable to that of the XC/FE but valved closer to that of the XC-W so depending on whether you want to race or just trail ride it will fit both applications. For the technical riding the stock valving will work as its on the softer side but will also have the bottoming resistance in g-outs etc you wont get with the XC-W and definitely not the EXC. For racing (Desert/GNCC) you would probably need the valving adjusted for the faster riders but you would need that on the XC as well because stock they deflect to much over square edge type stuff. As far as weight goes the WR has approx 12lbs over the KTM (depending on model) and after riding them back to back, cant say I noticed a difference in 12lbs.



  • o313

Posted September 06, 2013 - 11:49 AM

#54

I waited for the new WR to come out and was totally disappointed, now Yamaha lost another rider to KTM. The 2012+ WR is a better bike then the previous model but I think its nowhere near the current crop of Austrian bikes.

 

lol, the WR gained 3 pounds and still has less ground clearance then a honda civic!

 

I still feel for the money the WR is a great recreational bike but if you want to turn it into more of a race bike there are better bikes that come that way.


Edited by o313, September 06, 2013 - 12:36 PM.


  • 080

Posted September 06, 2013 - 02:03 PM

#55

 The 2012+ WR is a better bike then the previous model but I think its nowhere near the current crop of Austrian bikes.

 

 

That's kinda what I thought I was getting when I bought mine "a little more up to date/still heavy/reliable WR" but after a few rides I couldn't have been more mistaken. KTM makes a good bike no doubt but to think the newer WR is somehow inferior to them in performance suggest to me you have not spent much time riding one. With the hours I've got on the WR, owning a KTM and numerous seat time on other KTM's I would be lying if I said there was much difference between the two in performance. Out of the box the KTM is "ready to race" no doubt. Take the money you save in buying the WR over the KTM, add a pipe, revalve the suspension and you will have a better "ready to race" package in the WR than the KTM. Add those items to the KTM and now you will have 2 bikes that are very close in performance. The only thing I would add to that and this is where I made my decision to not buy the KTM. Hour for hour the KTM motor will require more attention and the likely hood of that motor failing is substantially higher than that of the WR (just go to KTMTalk).



  • o313

Posted September 06, 2013 - 02:56 PM

#56

The one point I won't dispute is the WR motor is super reliable but the newer KTM's have been really good as well. I still think that the WR won't be on-par with an XC-W/XC/EXC for the cost of the KTM, I do have very little time on the new WR but after checking out the 500 XC-W and the FI WR my money was spent on an FE501 (for a couple $100 you get slick forks etc..).

 

When I say "not on par" I in no way mean it won't be a heck of a fun bike but the weight is an issue and the suspension is still an issue (mostly preference, pre-2012 the WR forks are a joke). Yamaha has never published an accurate ground clearance on the WR either, 2007-2011 the bike sat under 12"!!!!  I would love to get more saddle time on the FI WR but after waiting for 5 years Yamaha grabbed a bunch of old parts and made a bike that still doesn't offer the same options I can buy off the showroom floor from KTM.



  • Krannie McKranface

Posted September 06, 2013 - 08:26 PM

#57

KTM's are lighter. Woop-ee.

They also require much more rider input to ride fast, and, when you do they reward you with tons of busy, not constructive behavior.

They also have strange ergonomics that force you to sit on the gas cap when going up hill.

They also have flexy forks, fragile transmissions, weak oil pumps, and suspension with plastic parts inside, that are difficult if not impossible to valve for a rider over 200lbs.

It a KTM falls down a hill, end over end, you part it out. It's done. Toast.

If you put a rock through a KTM inner case, you cannot purchase the case. They don't sell them.

 

So why are you spending $2800.00 more for a bike that is merely lighter, but worse at virtually everything else; unless you are professional with support, it makes no sense.



  • o313

Posted September 06, 2013 - 09:08 PM

#58

KTM's are lighter. Woop-ee.

They also require much more rider input to ride fast, and, when you do they reward you with tons of busy, not constructive behavior.

They also have strange ergonomics that force you to sit on the gas cap when going up hill.

They also have flexy forks, fragile transmissions, weak oil pumps, and suspension with plastic parts inside, that are difficult if not impossible to valve for a rider over 200lbs.

It a KTM falls down a hill, end over end, you part it out. It's done. Toast.

If you put a rock through a KTM inner case, you cannot purchase the case. They don't sell them.

 

So why are you spending $2800.00 more for a bike that is merely lighter, but worse at virtually everything else; unless you are professional with support, it makes no sense.

My experience with KTM seems to differ from yours, ask Kurt Caselli why he rides such a POS.

 

For being so fragile they sure seem to make it through a multitude of hard races, why is that?



  • shrubitup

Posted September 06, 2013 - 09:51 PM

#59

Midlifecrisis:

 

The 08-09 YZ450F stock motor and exhaust needs no de-tuning for off road riding. They did it for you from the factory. Excellent machine. 11 lbs heavier than a YZ250 two stroke. 

 

Of course the WR offers the button, 18 inch wheel, trail suspension etc but if on a budget these "slow" MXers are good for off road too. 



  • 080

Posted September 07, 2013 - 07:41 AM

#60

My experience with KTM seems to differ from yours, ask Kurt Caselli why he rides such a POS.

 

For being so fragile they sure seem to make it through a multitude of hard races, why is that?

KTM's aren't junk but Krannie does make some good points on the mechanics of them that you will find out after owning one for a while. Like all bikes there are certain likes and dislikes on the quality of certain parts or how it was designed/put together (good or bad). When you buy a KTM you are buying a purpose built race bike that performs well out of the box but will require more attention on the preventative maintenance side. This is due to the fact that certain parts are built lighter by using lighter weight material or made thinner which is why the newer style motors are having such a higher failure rate than their older style motors did. Back to your point of all the KTM models being better than the WR I feel your missing the point. The EXC was designed for the dual sport/trail riding guy, not exactly on par with a WR in a race situation without serious suspension work, gearing changes, installation of radiator fan etc. The XC-W was designed for the trail rider/racer but like the WR will require some suspension valving for the faster riders. The XC was built for the guy that rides track and trails but for serious offroad racing a revalve would be needed. It also does not come with a lighting package so that would need to be added if required. The other point you are missing is that the current WR for the most part shares the same motor, wheels and a few electronics as the previous one and that's about it. Yamaha sells the bike with all the restrictions on it required by law but they make it possible to pull it all off and tune it for a purpose built offroad racer (that's how they designed it). Once you take everything off to lighten it up per Yamaha, install the pipe and reprogram the FI per Yamaha you will have an offroad race bike that is lighter, more nimble, has better suspension and handling than that of the KTM. If the KTM was the better all around package in performance and reliability then I would have bought it over the WR without thinking twice about it. Each to their own, if you want performance out of the box and stay on top of things down the road then KTM is the answer.






 
x

Join Our Community!

Even if you don't want to post, registered members get access to tools that make finding & following the good stuff easier.

If you enjoyed reading about "" here in the ThumperTalk archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join ThumperTalk today!

The views and opinions expressed on this page are strictly those of the author, and have not been reviewed or approved by ThumperTalk.