Dwight_Rudder, on 08 February 2012 - 10:58 PM, said:

Hi Dwight:  Love all your insight. ... about the FWW, I have a 2012 KTM 200xcw and it does have a pretty good hit. I was thinking about a 9oz to smooth things out a bit, though you say the KTM doesn't need one.  Are you talking mostly the 250 and 300?  Also, because of that "hit", even though my gearing might be about right  for my terrain in 2nd gear, it seems too jumpy. Should I gear it down a bit (say 2 teeth) and ride 3rd?

cj_wai, on 09 February 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:

Im not making blanket statements. everything i am saying is a fact you will lose hp!!!!!!!!!!!!! your peak hp will be approx. the same. (no 2 dyno readings are exactly the same) your peak may be more or less. hp climbs along side of your rpms. if your rpms climb slower your hp climbs slower.
the point of the FWW is for the rpms to climb slower so that the bike is more controlable!!!
what part of that dont you get? just because it puts out the same peak hp doesnt mean it will keep up!!
not only that i already said that i like FWW just not on a fourstroke. why are you even arguing with me?

RIdude, on 12 February 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

the 200xc's do seem to whap a bit more than the 250's. it might be a good edea to try a weighted FW.

Melk-Man
Your talking in circles here. first you said no rider should go with out. now your saying its rider preference. and then you are talking about how you wouldnt ride with out a rekluse and recomend them to every one.
read your posts. you for some reason think that your opinion is valued more than anyone elses in this forum because you have a ridden a bike with and with out a rekluse clutch. so has everyone else in this forum including myself. you automaticaly assume that anybody arguing against them has not tried one even though i have told you repeatedly that i have ridden a few different bikes with them.
and i told you that it is a nice little "just in case" device, but you have to consider other things too. they are unreliable. you have to face the facts on that one. and they are also quite a bit more expensive that is innevitable.
i myself did not like the lack of control but that would be something that takes time getting used to.
the reason i dont like the rekluse all comes back to the same thing. THEY ARE EXPENSIVE AND UNRELIABLE!
and as far as telling me im acting like a child and disrespectful, im simply arguing my point just as you and everyone else in this forum is. thats half  the point of these forums is to be able to make a counter argument

RIdude, on 12 February 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

Give it a try.  1 or 2 teeth on the rear sometimes is all that is needed to use the next taller gear. I like using 3rd in fairly tight terrian.  Second for tight and 1st for really tight or slow going.

rpxtreme03, on 13 February 2012 - 03:58 AM, said:

hey;  i,m not argueing with you .i,m just saying your wrong that,s all.you say what your saying is fact.i say what i,m saying is your wrong.that is a fact.

They are expensive but i wouldnt say they arent reliable...as i said improper setup leads to clutch failure

briangriff321, on 13 February 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

i can't say why their failing because i dont run one all i know is that if that is the reason they are failing then a lot of people are setting them up wrong.

cj_wai, on 13 February 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

hahahaha you seriously cant see this? everything i said is about the FWW is completely 100% true. idk about you but ive been around motors and racing my entire life and i have seen the dyno sheets for these things. peak HP doesnt mean shit!! a little 85cc 2 stroke puts out close to the same peak hp as a 250 4T. that does not mean its anywheres nearly as power ful. the peak hp is a very narrow spike in the rpm range. a four stroke power curve looks like a half rainbow where that 85's power curve looks like the left half of the standard deviation curve. the only place its anywhere close to an equivalent hp is at its peak.
this is no where's close to reality but its the only way i can think of to describe it to you.

rpxtreme03, on 13 February 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

you had said a heavier flywheel weighted bike would lose a drag race.that is not a fact as that bike may win.would have to be tested.a heavier flywheel does not change the hp output or torque output of an engine.time to get educated and not just  hang around racing and engines your whole life.

a flywheel weight changes how a power curve rises and affects traction.nothing to do with loseing drag races and changing the output of a motor.

Edited by cj_wai, 13 February 2012 - 09:08 AM.

rpxtreme03, on 13 February 2012 - 03:58 AM, said:

because you don't know what your talking about in the full context of THIS TOPIC NOR how HP works with fww. 1st, a heavier flywheel will NOT show less hp on a dyno. Will it rev slower? yes.. but that is the design. You could make a bike with incredibly light rotating mass, yet it would be a LIGHT SWITCH of a motor, UNRIDEABLE for the most part. And in the woods, you need a managable power band and a motor that will not be snappy when clearing logs or other stuff.  Many woods race bikes are converted MOTO-CROSS bikes, with light flywheels to rev fast. That is NOT what most woods racers want. Comprende??
You are further proving my long standing belief that there are more stuborn people in NewYork per capita than anywhere on earth..

Edited by MELK-MAN, 13 February 2012 - 05:50 PM.

cj_wai, on 13 February 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

the rpms rise slower!!! meaning the hp climbs slower!!!

rpxtreme03, on 13 February 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

.. and ??? what is your point.. the hp is still the same, the heavier fww just changes the characteristic of the rise in hp NOT the hp at any given rpm.

rpxtreme03, on 13 February 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

you say "lots of people.." , i'm saying you don't know what your talking about in regards to MOST riders using auto clutches for WOODS riding. I have 2 of em, i ride 20hrs a month with MANY racers that have them, I line up in Harescrambles with MANY racers that have them.

There is an old saying, you might be too young to have heard it.. or understand it. But it goes something like "when 1 person says your wrong.. you might not be wrong.. but when many say your wrong you might be wrong".. Where do think you stand in this discussion?

That being said.. i have it on pretty high authority (top GNCC rider but won't post his name just yet, but trust me when i say he's one bad dude..) that most PRO GNCC riders DO NOT use an auto clutch.. But, pro GNCC riders make up a pretty small % of the tight woods riders, novice riders, and riders that otherwise benefit from the auto clutch.

Edited by MELK-MAN, 13 February 2012 - 08:18 PM.

rpxtreme03, on 13 February 2012 - 06:40 AM, said:

talking in circles.. or having someone put words in my mouth??  SHOW me where i EVER said "no rider should go without".. (quite opposite-myself and others have said some riders like em, some don't)..  YOU say they are unreliable, i say BULL  S-H-I-T. (myself and others have contended after HUNDREDS OF HOURS and multiple TOP finishes in 2 hour woods races they are durable. That SET UP and ABUSE are often what lead to failure).. And no Sir, you are NOT arguing your point like everyone else is..

Edited by MELK-MAN, 13 February 2012 - 08:24 PM.

rpxtreme03, on 13 February 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

i shall go out to the shop and turn all my flywheels down as much as i possibly can.i can then watch all my 1/4 mile e.t,s drop .

seriously.by your logic simply removing flywheel mass,no matter what bike,results in faster e.t,s.

awesome!  i,m there.

In the world of dirt bikes under real world conditions IE: mud, sand, rocks, loam etc all things being equal the bike with the heavier flywheel may win the drag race as the transfer of power may be more controlled leading to better aceleration. I have rarely seen a situation in which dirt bikes drag race for a quarter mile on pavement. Now I have run some GP's with paved sections but those are rare. My personal experince is that a FWW is sometimes a good thing when trying to create a woods racer out of an MX bike as the often allow the bike to pull a gear higher without as much clutch input and they also seem to help on dead engine starts and of course less killing the bike dragging the back brake. I also know from experince that a Rekluse clutch lasts longer component wise than a traditional clutch having used them now racing for going on eight years

MELK-MAN, on 13 February 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

Hey Melk no need to jump on NY. There are lots valid and invalid points by all sides on this one, and ain't nothing particular about NY when it comes to stubborn in this crap shoot or TT in general IMHO.

RIdude, on 12 February 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

Or you can try gear it up - and ride in 2nd - maybe that's the answer to cure the "jumpy" feeling.

Chaconne, on 14 February 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

my appologies. I did try to include in my statement that it isn't all NY'ers just "most".. no offense to those nice New Yorkers and i DO KNOW A FEW, but very few.

gruberyz, on 14 February 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

but wait! this entire post goes against everything Rpextreme03 believes in and has been telling us! how could this be true! Kidding aside, i agree 100%. For WOODS riding ( NOT mx tracks) this is why heavier flywheels are so popular. They help avoid stalls because you WANT MORE "inertia" that comes with more reciprocating mass. Sure, on an mx track where you want that bike to wick up NOW you wan't lighter flywheels. But that wasn't the subject of this thread as we have been trying to get across to young Rpextreme03 for some time now. I have yet to test the recluse parts for nearly as long as you Gruberyz.. i am please to hear they have lasted that long for you.

Edited by MELK-MAN, 15 February 2012 - 08:01 AM.

Best think about a Rekluse is the tech support. those guys are riders and they will give you solutions to issues from real world experince. I have had products from them that had teething problems and they took care of every issue I have ever had in a friendly let's get this solved manner.