2010 450 MX Bikes Comparison Data and Graphs Thread

[ProMed]

Grabbed this info from shootout DPW posted up: http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/11/5360/Motorcycle-Article/2010-450-Motocross-Shootout.aspx

If you guys come up with any other Data & Graphs please post them up in here so that we can compare.

Brief final conclusions in the order of shootout results from last to first:

2010 Honda CRF450R Highs & Lows

Highs

* Lightest and most narrow

* Easy-to-control powerband

* Turns on a dime

Lows

* Lacks high-speed stability on a rough track

* Front and rear suspension lack balance

* Smallest fuel capacity

If you’re looking for the lightest, most agile 450 on the market, than make no mistake about it, the 2010 Honda CRF450R has you covered. It excels on smooth and tight tracks where the 48mm Kayaba fork and Pro-Link shock doesn’t get fully taxed. The CRF’s engine has plenty of steam, plus it’s versatile and easy to use. Although the 450R feels smallest in this group, the ergonomic package is intuitive and can fit a wider range of riders by the simple addition of a taller handlebar.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2010 Kawasaki KX450F Highs & Lows

Highs

* Monster motor

* Excellent chassis – very balanced and stable

* Tall rider’s bike of choice

Lows

* Feels the heaviest

* Loudest exhaust note

* Appearance starting to look dated

If you’re a larger, heavier rider, or really know how to put a motocross bike through its paces then the 2010 Kawasaki KX450F is the best 450 machine. The firm suspension offers excellent balance and is perfectly suited for high-speed tracks. While the Kawi certainly isn’t the easiest bike to ride in this quartet, in the hands of a skilled rider it absolutely shreds.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2010 Yamaha YZ450F Highs & Lows

Highs

* Easy-to-ride

* Well balanced chassis; excellent suspension

* Costs the least and includes 30-day warranty

Lows

* Could be lighter

* Ergonomics cater to shorter riders

* Difficult to start when engine is hot

Yamaha’s ergonomics aim at shorter riders, even more so than the CRF’s. The bike feels similar to the Kawasaki in terms of width and the seat is flat allowing the rider to maneuver his body forward or backward unencumbered. However, the spacial relationship between the rider triangle makes for an extremely tight cockpit. It’s almost sportbike-like in how compacted the rider control surfaces feel.

Just like before, the 2010 Yamaha YZ450F continues to impress us with just how easy it is to ride. Whether the track is rough or smooth, its suspension gobbles up everything. Plus it has an engine that’s equally effective at putting that power down to the ground. If you’re looking for the easiest 450 motocross bike to ride the new Yamaha is it.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2010 KTM 450 SX-F Highs & Lows

Highs

* Electric start!

* Versatile ergonomics for all rider sizes

* Deceptively fast and quiet engine

Lows

* Rear shock isn't as plush as the fork

* Highest price tag

The 450 SX-F is a serious strike against the best from Japan. The engine is smooth, quiet and powerful, plus starting it is as easy as pushing a button. Its chassis is nimble in the tight stuff and unflappable through fast, rough terrain plus the ergos are a match to almost all riders.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2010 Motocross Shootout Conclusion

2010 Honda CRF450R – 4th – 117 points

For ’10 Honda tried to infuse more balance into its CRF450R, but in the end it didn’t quite achieve the complete result. While there are certain attributes that we love about this motorcycle, including its quick steering, powerful-yet-friendly engine characteristics, awesome brakes and intuitive rider compartment, the chassis shortcomings and high-speed stability issues are too much to overlook. With some more chassis and suspension tweaks, the Honda could be the best bike. It’s got the engine, it’s got the turning, now it just needs some more balance and stability to be next year’s winner.

2010 Kawasaki KX450F – 3rd – 128 points

You’re probably thinking “how can a bike that won last year finish third a year later?” Honestly, the KX450F is an excellent motorcycle—for the right person and the right track. Although it is substantially easier to ride than in years past, it still requires more from its rider than any of the other bikes. With the right rider at the controls at an ultra high-speed track, there is nothing that will touch the KX, plain and simple. If the Kawasaki can shed some weight and become just a little less hard-edged it’ll be right back on top.

2010 Yamaha YZ450F – 2nd – 136 points

We had high expectations for Yamaha’s retooled YZ450F coming into this shootout. Just like during our First Ride, the YZ450F blew us away with its high-end and well-sorted suspension, chassis and engine that allow the rider to ride to their full potential. The problem is that the Yamaha just missed out in the objective performance ratings. While its engine is good, it’s not the best. While it feels light in motion, at a standstill it’s a tank. If Yamaha could infuse a bit more straight up performance this bike could win.

2010 KTM 450 SX-F – 1st – 148 points

Never in a million years did we think that KTM’s 450 SX-F could outpace the best from Japan, especially with the heavy-hitting class of 2010. However from the minute we pushed the e-start button until we lifted it back on the stand, the KTM shocked us with its deceptively fast and quiet engine, solid handling, killer brakes and clutch response, not to mention spot-on rider controls. The KTM is one of the fastest most stable and ultimately fun motocross bikes we've ever tested. If you want the best motocross bike of 2010 the KTM 450 SX-F is it.

Edited January 3, 2010 by ProMed

[grayracer513]

Interesting, but it doesn't really belong in this sub-forum. I'll move it in a day or two.

Meanwhile, it looks like all the crap about how heavy the YZ is is pretty much just that, eh? At least on a relative basis.

[Davey762]

Good info, I dont believe moto usa top speed numbers though. They always seem on the low side compared to bikes ive radared.

[LVThumper]

I find it intersting that they call the YZ a "tank" when it's only 1 lb more than the KTM and 1 lb LESS than the KX??

Also, where is the Suzuki for comparison??

[FinchFan194]

In the original article they stated that none were in the US for comparison. Or something like that.

[twenty34]

Out of courtesy if nothing else, you probably didn't need to repost all their content here. A link would have sufficed. MXA actually locks their content down - images and all. Read:

"TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE

[Thumper38]

I think it was a great idea for comparisons!

[ProMed]

Interesting, but it doesn't really belong in this sub-forum.I'll move it in a day or two.

Meanwhile, it looks like all the crap about how heavy the YZ is is pretty much just that, eh? At least on a relative basis.

I'm most interested in the new Yamaha, that's why I posted it here. I figured it would be good for anyone like myself wanting to compare the '10 YZ with the other bikes.

As far as weight, they are all pretty close except the Honda which is 12-13 pounds less. I'm pretty impressed that the KTM is actually less than the other with a freaking e-start! It may be unfounded, but I'm still waiting on a linkage from them though!

I like almost everything I see about the YZ except the ergonomics being the tightest of all three, "aimed for shorter riders", and how "the spacial relationship between the rider triangle makes for an extremely tight cockpit. It’s almost sportbike-like in how compacted the rider control surfaces feel."

Will be interesting to see how much of this can be adjusted out.

For the power graphs, a few weeks ago I posted these Akrapovic graphs which looked much different. You even replied:

Fifty two HP...stock?! Three more than the Honda, and 5 more than the KXF or RMZ.

I figured it would be cool to look at several different resources to get a more balanced idea. When we look at these most recent graph there is a pretty big difference. As you mentioned that the YZ had 5 more hp than the KXF, these show it being down 2hp. That's a 7hp swing.

http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/PhotoGallerys/xlarge/63397285545879768410_450mxhp.jpg

http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/PhotoGallerys/xlarge/63397285567268328110_450mxtorque.jpg

Akrapovic Graphs:

2010 Yamaha YZ450F:

http://www.akrapovic.com/typo3conf/ext/user_products/mod1/uploads/products/racing_evolution_exhaust_system_for_the_yamaha_yz_450_f_2010_/yamaha_yz450f_2010_complete_rac_evo_.jpg

2010 Kawasaki KX450F:

http://www.akrapovic.com/typo3conf/ext/user_products/mod1/uploads/products/racing_evolution_exhaust_system_for_the_kawasaki_kx_450_f_2010_/kawasaki_kx450f_2010_complete_rac_evo_.jpg

2010 Honda CRF450R:

http://www.akrapovic.com/typo3conf/ext/user_products/mod1/uploads/products/evolution_exhaust_system_for_the_honda_crf_450_r_2009_2010_/ho_crf450r_evo_2009_diag.jpg

[Mike546]

Interesting, but it doesn't really belong in this sub-forum. I'll move it in a day or two.

Meanwhile, it looks like all the crap about how heavy the YZ is is pretty much just that, eh? At least on a relative basis.

Why doesn't it belong here?

[grayracer513]

Why doesn't it belong here?

Because it is of general interest, and 75% of it's content concerns bikes of other brands.

[Mike546]

Because it is of general interest, and 75% of it's content concerns bikes of other brands.

I think that most everyone likes to see how their bike stands up against other brands. It's not like we can go out and try them all and make a decision on our own. Sometimes you have to take the blinders off see what you have been missing by looking straight ahead. Not trying to start an argument but it sometime seems like your views are one sided when it comes to blue bikes.

[ProMed]

Because it is of general interest, and 75% of it's content concerns bikes of other brands.

I understand where you are coming from, however 100% of the graphs and charts include the 2010 YZ450F and allow us to compare it with the other bikes.

[Thumper38]

I say keep it here!

[ProMed]

One thing I find interesting is the crazy bottom-end power with a weak top-end that we have been reading about for the '10 YZ. The dyno graphs actually show the opposite for both hp and torque in comparison with several of the other bikes. Will be fun to see what all can be accomplished with the tuner and/or gearing.

[tk1]

With all the hype and technological advances being promised by the Japanese, KTM is proving that less can still be more. Good job!

[FinchFan194]

One thing I find interesting is the crazy bottom-end power with a weak top-end that we have been reading about for the '10 YZ. The dyno graphs actually show the opposite for both hp and torque in comparison with several of the other bikes. Will be fun to see what all can be accomplished with the tuner and/or gearing.

Dyno's and actual feel on a bike are two totally different things I could really care less what a dyno says.

[grayracer513]

For the power graphs, a few weeks ago I posted these Akrapovic graphs which looked much different. You even replied...

I figured it would be cool to look at several different resources to get a more balanced idea. When we look at these most recent graph there is a pretty big difference. As you mentioned that the YZ had 5 more hp than the KXF, these show it being down 2hp. That's a 7hp swing.

The thing to remember about inertia dynos is that they are far more accurate when used to compare the results of changes made than as any kind of an accurate measuring device. There are far too many variables involved, especially as pertains to traction on the roller. There is rarely any posted indication of what tire was used (a good road tire can be worth as much as 10 measured HP in extreme cases, and will almost always add at least 3 to the indicated output where 35 hp or more is involved). Dynos vary according to brand, input info, and operator quite a bit, too. I tend to look to sources that have produced consistent middle of the range numbers in the past, or just wait until enough different readings have been taken determine what the mean numbers are.

[ProMed]

Dyno's and actual feel on a bike are two totally different things I could really care less what a dyno says.

Did you intend to say that you couldn't really care less?

Butt dynos are notoriously inaccurate btw.

[ProMed]

The thing to remember about inertia dynos is that they are far more accurate when used to compare the results of changes made than as any kind of an accurate measuring device. There are far too many variables involved, especially as pertains to traction on the roller. There is rarely any posted indication of what tire was used (a good road tire can be worth as much as 10 measured HP in extreme cases, and will almost always add at least 3 to the indicated output where 35 hp or more is involved). Dynos vary according to brand, input info, and operator quite a bit, too. I tend to look to sources that have produced consistent middle of the range numbers in the past, or just wait until enough different readings have been taken determine what the mean numbers are.

I assume Akrapovic did their 2010 runs at very different times between models. Of course comparing their dyno runs to the one Motorcycle USA is fret with inaccuracies, even outside of not knowing any of the other variables involved in Akrapovic's runs.

However, I would assume that Motorcycle USA ran all of the new bikes on the same dyno and at relatively close times to each other since they had all the bikes available together at one time. As such I would assume their h.p./ torque numbers between the bikes to be much more accurate, albeit at least for comparison purposes between the models.

Hopefully more dyno comparison charts become available so that they can be added into the equation as well.

[grayracer513]

I assume Akrapovic did their 2010 runs at very different times between models. Of course comparing their dyno runs to the one Motorcycle USA is fret with inaccuracies, even outside of not knowing any of the other variables involved in Akrapovic's runs.

However, I would assume that Motorcycle USA ran all of the new bikes on the same dyno and at relatively close times to each other since they had all the bikes available together at one time. As such I would assume their h.p./ torque numbers between the bikes to be much more accurate, albeit at least for comparison purposes between the models.

That's the kind of thought you have to put into looking at dyno numbers you didn't produce yourself exactly.