In 1982 I bought a chevy chasis for $50, as an aside he asked me if I wanted the bike sitting in the back of garage for another $50, I was about to pass when I said WTH, so I bought a dusty old 1973 RT1. A few weeks later I installed a paddle on the RT1 and for a grand total of $150 I was off to Pismo....Where, everyone else I went with, with their high dollar buggies and new yz's, promptly broke down, succumbed to the evil sand. In the meantime, me and my $150 went on to lay utter waste to all those brand new 250x's, conquer competition hill, devils slide, and tow a broken yz 10 miles down the beach. Sometimes, It not about how much you spend, but sometimes it is
Mr Gould will be my hero when he
Plus this
Nothing goes like a large bore 2 stroke in the sand....I don't care how much money he sinks into that high strung, high maintenance, 4 stroke
Let's cut through the effluvia! Rules changes made the four-stroke what it is today. It didn't get there by virtue of its power per cubic centimeter, power per pound or power per dollar. Nope! Without the AMA four-stroke exemption rule of 1998, the modern four-stroke would still be defined by the Honda XR600. Forget about EPA rules (they don’t affect closed-course racing machines), fleet fuel averages (they don’t apply to offroad bikes), cost savings (four-strokes cost more to produce) or any of the other hokey reasons that the nattering nabobs of negativity credit the rise of the four-stroke on. None of those things are players. Engine for engine, cc for cc, ounce for ounce, the two-stroke motocross engine is a vastly superior piece of equipment. If the two-stroke was invented today, it would sweep the four-stroke motocross engine off the face of the earth (which is exactly what it did 43 years ago—when the displacement rules were equal).
Pit pundits will always tell you that horsepower doesn’t matter as much as torque. They wax on about the torque advantage that a four-stroke engine has over a two-stroke. Guess what? A Yamaha YZ250F four-stroke makes 20.1 foot-pounds of torque. Are you ready? A YZ250 two-stroke pumps out 30.6 ft-pounds. For comparison purposes a 450 four-strokes produces approximately 34 foot-pounds.(they neglect to mention what a 500cc 2 stroke makes in torque, but it is a hell of a lot more than that crf450)
Motocross action http://motocrossacti...maha/News/TWOSTROKE-VERSUS-FOURSTROKE-MOTOCROSS-SHOOTOUT-YAM-7117.aspx
and if it's trail friendly you want, Here's an interesting article on the Maico 760 single tuned for 4000rpms peak:
No sir. It merely pulls like the friendliest tractor you ever did see in your whole life.The bike peaks out at a mere 4000 rpm. In this day and age of Open bikes turning 7000-plus rpm, it’s almost leisurely. Peak horsepower is rated at a very conservative 43. However, at a mere 1200 rpm, the massive engine puts out 26 horsepower, more than the hottest 125s produce at peak revs. And we’re talking rear wheel horsepower, too. None of those namby-pamby readings at the crank.Now, think for a moment about those numbers and try to translate them into some sort of reality in your head. It means that the rider can loaf down the trail at just above idle and, with a flick of the wrist, have a big bucket of torque at his disposal. No radical rpm needed. Just roll that sucker on a little bit and get a lot of forward motion in return.To try and give you a good idea of what this feels like, think about the following for a moment. The Blackwater race was held in quite possibly the nastiest conditions imaginable. Deep bogs, tight woods, water crossings of death, etc. Grim. Some of the sections threaded through narrow tree-lined paths, with slippery roots criss-crossing the trails.
Here, the 760 could be comfortably left in third gear, with no clutch work required.We could let the rpms drop off to almost nothing and smoothly roll the throttle on; the bike would respond by pulling strongly, with no snatching or grabbing. Almost like a Husky automatic, but with none of the irritating lag and hesitation.Long uphills were almost a joke. Just leave the bike in third or fourth and roll the throttle on as needed. No down gearing or clutch slipping needed. This was truly the only dirt bike we’ve ever ridden that never ran out of power, no matter how low the engine was forced to lug and grunt. The closest thing to a tractor imaginable.The second most asked question was: "Is it a bear to ride? Must be a real handful, right?"No. Actually, the bike was incredibly easy to ride. The power delivery was as flat as any stretch of Kansas landscape you can picture. It literally pulled from idle. Now, we know that’s a widely overused phrase, one that journalists like to pull out of their editorial hat to "dazzle the spectators." However, in this case, it holds true right down to the gnat’s buttocks.You can chug the 760 right down to the last few wheezes and it’ll pull back without a hint of protest. There are no odd surges or sudden bursts of power. Rather, there’s a smooth, steady and seemingly endless flow of vibration-free torque. Combined with the heavy flywheels, there’s almost no wheelspin. The meaty Metzeler on the bike simply hooks up and pushes the bike forward with no fuss.NO SHAKES... NO BREAKS
You might well wonder how they get a single-cylinder engine of this size to run without vibrating itself to death. Simple. The crank is balanced as if the engine would turn the more-or-less normal 7000 rpm. But, with the power peaking at 4000, the engine never even gets into the shaking range. In fact, it puts out less vibration than a mildly tuned 250 play bike.
http://articles.superhunky.com/4/52