Everyone knows that USUALLY, 125's race 250's and 250's race 450's.

not true at all, you ever seen that gieco commercial with people living under rocks? yeah that

Actually in almost all amateur motocross races, 250 2 strokes race with 250 4 strokes...its only the ama pro nationals that the 250 2 strokes cant race against 250f's. At my local track the 250 class is dominated by 2 strokes...

Well, its not exactly a straight forward answer. You'd think the best bike to ride would be the one with best power to weight ratio. So that would put the 250 2 strokes way ahead of the game. But in reality, they are still more difficult to ride then a 250F, yet are lighter and produce more power. The key lies in the power pulses and the powerband which comes from those pulses.

At any given RPM, lets say 5000 for discussion sake, a 2 stroke motor will produce power 2x more then a 4 stroke, a 2 stroke has DOUBLE the power pulses as a 4 stroke. That means a 250 4 stroke at 5000 RPM the motor puts less power on the ground. When talking about power pulses, a 4 stroke generates 1/2 as many during its rev range then a 2 stroke. Because of this, the power going to the rear wheel is more "staccato", instead of "electric". This makes the 4 stroke want to hook up better because the power pulses are infrequent enough, the rear tire has some time to rest as it grips and prepares for the next assault on the dirt. Completely imperceivable to man kind, but if you slow down the action in a test environment, you can see this phenomenon. I've seen it as it relates to tarmac racing, but its the same deal here.

With that said, there are many other characteristics that benefit the 4 stroke. The biggest one is what I refer to as "the linear power equation". A 250 2 stroke has a progressive power output, the higher the RPM, the exponentially more power is produced. That's because for a 2 stroke to make power, it needs to be moving the air/fuel mixture around quicker and that only happens from higher RPM's. Four strokes in general have a linear powerband, which means; from about 3000 RPM on-word, the power is pretty much a straight line to is peak, its extremely linear and predictable. Obviously there is much more scientific crap to discuss related to this subject, but in the end, the linear powerband of a 4 stroke is where you wanna be.

Obviously a 250 2 stroke has gobs of torque, so you can "muscle" it around the track which makes it FAR easier to ride then a 125/150. But it has quite a punch and when you're in the proper RPM range for that punch, it will just spin the rear wheel. A 250 4 stroke also has a good amount of torque, but because of its staccato and linear power output, that torque is more manageable and predictable.

So to answer your question, its really a toss up. I'd say the two easiest bikes to ride are the 250/450 4 stroke's, leaning more on the 250 because of its power to weight ratio. The 450 is heavier, so it will be harder to steer, but thats OK, you've got so much punch coming out of a corner, that you could completely mess it up and still make the next obstacle in front of your competition. The 250 2 stroke is for sure harder to ride fast, it requires a lot more energy, probably 2x more then the 250/450 4 stroke. The 125/150 is about 2x harder to ride then a 250 2 stroke. Having ridden both of them back to back on recent occasions, its just amazing how much easier the 250 2 stroke is then my bike.

In the end, buying the easiest bike to ride isn't necessarily the answer to a problem that doesn't exist. I ride a 125 because on an average day of riding, I'm pitted up against guys on 450's and I can smoke a lot of them. My thought process is; if I can ride a 125 to the laptimes of a B class racer on a 250... then when I get on a bigger bike, Ohh My God, I will be fast. I've already tasted the bigger bike waters and can already tell how much quicker I am. Obviously, I'm nowhere near my goal today, but I think nobody can deny how good a 125/150 is as a training tool. I also think, maintenance and initial purchase price play a huge role. Cheapest bike to buy and own; 125/150. Second cheapest 250 2 stroke. The 4 strokes are exponentially more expensive to buy and own, which is a huge hindrance if your racing.

your local tracks do not follow ama rules? Everywhere I've been it's 250 vs 250 now, you can ride 125/144/150 vs the 250's if you want to

Well, its not exactly a straight forward answer. You'd think the best bike to ride would be the one with best power to weight ratio. So that would put the 250 2 strokes way ahead of the game. But in reality, they are still more difficult to ride then a 250F, yet are lighter and produce more power. The key lies in the power pulses and the powerband which comes from those pulses.

At any given RPM, lets say 5000 for discussion sake, a 2 stroke motor will produce power 2x more then a 4 stroke, a 2 stroke has DOUBLE the power pulses as a 4 stroke. That means a 250 4 stroke at 5000 RPM the motor puts less power on the ground. When talking about power pulses, a 4 stroke generates 1/2 as many during its rev range then a 2 stroke. Because of this, the power going to the rear wheel is more "staccato", instead of "electric". This makes the 4 stroke want to hook up better because the power pulses are infrequent enough, the rear tire has some time to rest as it grips and prepares for the next assault on the dirt. Completely imperceivable to man kind, but if you slow down the action in a test environment, you can see this phenomenon. I've seen it as it relates to tarmac racing, but its the same deal here.

With that said, there are many other characteristics that benefit the 4 stroke. The biggest one is what I refer to as "the linear power equation". A 250 2 stroke has a progressive power output, the higher the RPM, the exponentially more power is produced. That's because for a 2 stroke to make power, it needs to be moving the air/fuel mixture around quicker and that only happens from higher RPM's. Four strokes in general have a linear powerband, which means; from about 3000 RPM on-word, the power is pretty much a straight line to is peak, its extremely linear and predictable. Obviously there is much more scientific crap to discuss related to this subject, but in the end, the linear powerband of a 4 stroke is where you wanna be.

Obviously a 250 2 stroke has gobs of torque, so you can "muscle" it around the track which makes it FAR easier to ride then a 125/150. But it has quite a punch and when you're in the proper RPM range for that punch, it will just spin the rear wheel. A 250 4 stroke also has a good amount of torque, but because of its staccato and linear power output, that torque is more manageable and predictable.

So to answer your question, its really a toss up. I'd say the two easiest bikes to ride are the 250/450 4 stroke's, leaning more on the 250 because of its power to weight ratio. The 450 is heavier, so it will be harder to steer, but thats OK, you've got so much punch coming out of a corner, that you could completely mess it up and still make the next obstacle in front of your competition. The 250 2 stroke is for sure harder to ride fast, it requires a lot more energy, probably 2x more then the 250/450 4 stroke. The 125/150 is about 2x harder to ride then a 250 2 stroke. Having ridden both of them back to back on recent occasions, its just amazing how much easier the 250 2 stroke is then my bike.

In the end, buying the easiest bike to ride isn't necessarily the answer to a problem that doesn't exist. I ride a 125 because on an average day of riding, I'm pitted up against guys on 450's and I can smoke a lot of them. My thought process is; if I can ride a 125 to the laptimes of a B class racer on a 250... then when I get on a bigger bike, Ohh My God, I will be fast. I've already tasted the bigger bike waters and can already tell how much quicker I am. Obviously, I'm nowhere near my goal today, but I think nobody can deny how good a 125/150 is as a training tool. I also think, maintenance and initial purchase price play a huge role. Cheapest bike to buy and own; 125/150. Second cheapest 250 2 stroke. The 4 strokes are exponentially more expensive to buy and own, which is a huge hindrance if your racing.

Either way, my main point was about wich was easier to ride. That's a kinda dumb rule, cuz that's pretty much like racing a 125 2 stroke vs a 250 2 stroke. They should make a 200 4 stroke to race against a 125. That seems fair.

I got a question for you, When I'm trying to drift, should I just feather the clutch while giving it gas to break out the rear wheel?

a dumb rule is making a 250 race a 450, that's how we got to where we are now

letting 250 two strokes race 250 4 strokes goes a long way to lowering racing costs back down

Drifting is all wheel-spin associated and honestly, wheel spin slows you down. Its one of my pet peeves. If I'm on a good lap and I spin up the rear, I forget that lap entirely because its just a waste at that point.

It depends on the surface and condition of the track. If you're dealing with a hardpacked surface, the rear will already drift out on its own just using the throttle. If your dealing with a softer surface, ya you might need to tap the clutch in order to get the rear to start spinning, but not much.

4t is easier to learn to ride, and easier to learn to ride well. It's also easier to go fast without learning much of anything. This will slow you down in the long run. on a serious level, 450 4t is the most competitive in it's class. Vastly more expensive to own than 2t. 4t bikes are very stable and tractor through just about anything.


2t is WAY more fun to ride, it moves your soul. It requires marginally more work to ride, almost negligible. They're explosive and require a different technique. They seem to me to require that you learn proper riding technique, which pays off in the long run. They are cheaper to own.



The reason I ride 2t is they are lighter and thus handle better, they are way more flickable since they are lighter and don't have as much strong gyro effect holding the bike up as a 4t does. 4t is like a freight train, you steer with the front wheel and go through anything, 2t has a flowing riding style; you steer alot with the rear wheel and finesse your way around things.


What's the nature of this question? are for looking for a first bike?

But if you can carry your speed more into a corner and just drift instead of slowing down and losing speed, wouldn't that make more sense?

I just wanted to know what was really true. I already own a kx125. It's just because most people say that 2 strokes are harder, but then other people tell me that their the same. I don't believe those people about them being the same, but I just wanted to confirm if it was true (about 2 stroke being harder). The whole reason I got a 125 was so I could learn the proper technique to ride fast, and I woula been pretty upset to find out that I coulda just gone and bought a 250 for the exact same performance, and more torque.