2010 450 MX Bikes Comparison Data and Graphs Thread

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

Butt dynos are notoriously inaccurate btw.

Nope! What are you the grammar police?

I could care less would be the proper way to say it. Don't beleive me? I could care less. . .:moon:

Nope! What are you the grammar police?

I could care less would be the proper way to say it. Don't beleive me? I could care less. . .:moon:

So then, you care more, is what you are trying to communicate to us, as I understand it.

No fighting in the war room. :cheers:

So then, you care more, is what you are trying to communicate to us, as I understand it.

No fighting in the war room. :moon:

He started it!:cheers:

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

While only 75% of this pertains to Yamaha, 100% of it pertains to Yamaha as it compares to the other bikes. It is also 100% interesting to this reader/blogger and Yamaha rider.

As this forum is one of the only forums I read on this site, it is 100% useful that I don't have to search all over heck and back for all of this great info somewhere else.

Repost it elsewhere as you see fit but please also keep it here.

Sheeesh!

25% of the time, I'm right every time.

25% of the time, I'm right every time.

Haha!

I couldn't care less make more sense if you think about it...I'm not taking sides or anything. Forgive me for even responding to this nonsense. My 2010 hasn't arrived yet, it's cold here, and I have too much time on my hands.

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

That is a shame really.

Bikes that feel slow because they are real smooth but make higher hp #'s for longer actually hook up better, go faster, and tire the rider out less.

Bikes that feel really fast but aren't, just make a rider turn slower lap times.

I swapped one day recently from a hard hitting CRF450 to an SX450F and I remember thinking that the KTM was notably slower...then I overjumped every obstacle by 10' and I quickly realized I was actually going mush faster everywhere on that smooth as silk KTM.

How come no suzuki RMZ in the test ?....OOOOPPPS I SHOULDVE read the artical better seems they couldnt get a test bike from suzuki

That is a shame really.

Bikes that feel slow because they are real smooth but make higher hp #'s for longer actually hook up better, go faster, and tire the rider out less.

Bikes that feel really fast but aren't, just make a rider turn slower lap times.

I swapped one day recently from a hard hitting CRF450 to an SX450F and I remember thinking that the KTM was notably slower...then I overjumped every obstacle by 10' and I quickly realized I was actually going mush faster everywhere on that smooth as silk KTM.

That is exactly my point!

Of course minus the KTM part. . .

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

Bikes that feel slow because they are real smooth but make higher hp #'s for longer actually hook up better, go faster, and tire the rider out less.

Bikes that feel really fast but aren't, just make a rider turn slower lap times.

I swapped one day recently from a hard hitting CRF450 to an SX450F and I remember thinking that the KTM was notably slower...then I overjumped every obstacle by 10' and I quickly realized I was actually going mush faster everywhere on that smooth as silk KTM.

That is exactly my point!

Of course minus the KTM part. . .

I think you are missing his point.

You should want to know both the dyno results and the "feel" of the bike. If you only consider one or the other, you are only getting half the picture.

I think you are missing his point.

You should want to know both the dyno results and the "feel" of the bike. If you only consider one or the other, you are only getting half the picture.

Why care about the dyno at all if you are going to make you purchase based on how the bike feels and what you want out of it. What does a dyno have to do with the two examples he just gave?

The Subjective Chart from this particular shoot-out was not included with the other charts. The subjective chart bodes very well for the Yamaha.

Why care about the dyno at all if you are going to make you purchase based on how the bike feels and what you want out of it. What does a dyno have to do with the two examples he just gave?

Go back and read his reply again and just think about it for a sec. If you still don't get it, oh well..

Go back and read his reply again and just think about it for a sec. If you still don't get it, oh well..

I get it but I simply don't care about dynos. A dyno will never be incorporated into my decision when buying a bike. You can't tell much about the performance of a dirtbike because of a dyno test. There are too many variables such as track/soil type, tire selection, suspension setup and tire choice to name a few. So you are only getting a test on a dyno with one condition with perfect traction. Doesn't sound like a very good test for a MX bike to me. Hey to each his own if a dyno matters to you then that is your decision. I just choose not to. "If you still don't get it, oh well.."

I get it but I simply don't care about dynos. A dyno will never be incorporated into my decision when buying a bike. You can't tell much about the performance of a dirtbike because of a dyno test. There are too many variables such as track/soil type, tire selection, suspension setup and tire choice to name a few. So you are only getting a test on a dyno with one condition with perfect traction. Doesn't sound like a very good test for a MX bike to me. Hey to each his own if a dyno matters to you then that is your decision. I just choose not to. "If you still don't get it, oh well.."

Lol, you say you get it, but then your reply says the opposite.

Clearly nobody in this thread is claiming the dyno is everything or the end-all gauge to measure a bike by. However, just as you said, with the dyno you are able to get a measurement that levels out all of those variables such as "track/soil type, tire selection, suspension setup" etc. Especially when reading a subjective magazine review, the dyno provides hard numbers that provide a non-biased view of what the engine is doing at every rpm.

A dyno is just one of many tools available to evaluate/ measure/ compare a bike with other models and or modifications. If you choose to ignore this readily available tool and focus only on "feel" (i.e. butt-dyno) then good luck with that.

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.

the bike really falls off in 3rd gear with stock sproket.i put a 50 tooth rear on my sons bike and he said it pulled hard on top now.we were at a track last weekend and a friend had his yz450 there with the stock gearing and couldnt do a single into a rythem section because 2nd was to low and 3rd was to high,my son done it pretty easy with the 50 t rear on his bike.we played with the tuner alot and can't get a handle on it yet.

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?? :moon:

Also, where is the Suzuki for comparison??

Thats not actually correct. The YZ is infact the heaviest bike out of them all and 1 pound MORE than the KX. Put the same amount of fuel in each bike and that is the result you will end up with and the way you should be looking at comparing weights.

From last years tests it looks like the YZ has gained around 3.5kg or 7.7 pounds from last year. (dry weight) To me that is a major backwards step for a race bike but that is just my opinion.

Thats not actually correct. The YZ is infact the heaviest bike out of them all and 1 pound MORE than the KX. Put the same amount of fuel in each bike and that is the result you will end up with and the way you should be looking at comparing weights.

From last years tests it looks like the YZ has gained around 3.5kg or 7.7 pounds from last year. (dry weight) To me that is a major backwards step for a race bike but that is just my opinion.

I agree, with advancements in new materials and their increased availability, every bike should be losing weight each redesign imo.

the bike really falls off in 3rd gear with stock sproket.i put a 50 tooth rear on my sons bike and he said it pulled hard on top now.we were at a track last weekend and a friend had his yz450 there with the stock gearing and couldnt do a single into a rythem section because 2nd was to low and 3rd was to high,my son done it pretty easy with the 50 t rear on his bike.we played with the tuner alot and can't get a handle on it yet.

Good info, thanks!

I agree, with advancements in new materials and their increased availability, every bike should be losing weight each redesign imo.

At the cost of reliability?

The weight gained by these bikes is going to places you don't hear about....all aimed at gaining run time.

The manu's have figured out that bike sales are horrible. They have also figured out that people are struggling to keep their old 4t's running...and that resale is a pain now days.

If they can change the bikes to be more reliable, boost used resale, they can boost new sales as well.

The honda, which IMHO defines race bike to a T (but has issues...) is very light. It is also plagued with more failures than any 450 to date. I have seen quite a few come through my shop...and heard of a quite a few through others. Less weight has its cost.

EFI also adds weight sadly...though I am sure that will easily come down.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now