OzVMX Forum

Clubroom => General Discussion => Topic started by: albrid-3 on March 27, 2013, 07:17:44 pm

Title: A Bikes Weight
Post by: albrid-3 on March 27, 2013, 07:17:44 pm
over the past 45 years, there has not been a great change of weight saving between the model for example 1972 380 dry weight is 106 kg compare to a 2013 Husqvarna 310 109 KG kerb weight.
Title: Re: A Bikes Weight
Post by: TM BILL on March 27, 2013, 08:26:09 pm
Dave your correct the overall weight has increased , however when you consider the added weight of water cooling , disc brakes , rear suspension components (not just 2 shocks bolted to the frame) way bigger forks and clamps plus a four stroke motor its impressive that the weight has remained simillar .
Title: Re: A Bikes Weight
Post by: djr on March 27, 2013, 09:15:02 pm
Hello,
As has been said The modern Moto Cross / Enduro Bike is a lot more complex than a 1970s bike , so that is most likely why the weight has not decreased over the years.
Also I may be wrong but was there a minimum weight rule for Moto Cross / Enduro  introduced in the early 1970s ?
 I think to prevent manufacturers building ever lighter {but fragile/dangerous} bikes.
Trials bikes seem to have lost some weight over the years, I have a 1976 OSSA MAR & a 2010 GAS GAS 300.
I dont know the proper weights for these 2 bikes , but just from trying to lift them the OSSA is noticeably heavier !
Title: Re: A Bikes Weight
Post by: albrid-3 on March 27, 2013, 09:15:46 pm
When you put it into that contents yes your right Tm Bill.
Title: Re: A Bikes Weight
Post by: TooFastTim on March 28, 2013, 02:22:56 am
Dave your correct the overall weight has increased , however when you consider the added weight of water cooling , disc brakes , rear suspension components (not just 2 shocks bolted to the frame) way bigger forks and clamps plus a four stroke motor its impressive that the weight has remained simillar .

Aha! I see a flaw in your argument Baldrick! How come, with the addition of the same complexity, trials bikes weights have dropped by 30 Kgs in the same period?
Title: Re: A Bikes Weight
Post by: jerry on March 28, 2013, 06:57:32 am
A friends son said after riding my 40 year old Pursang" shit it feels light as a feather!" I allowed myself the indulgence of nodding sagely. J
Title: Re: A Bikes Weight
Post by: tony27 on March 28, 2013, 08:55:32 am
Dave your correct the overall weight has increased , however when you consider the added weight of water cooling , disc brakes , rear suspension components (not just 2 shocks bolted to the frame) way bigger forks and clamps plus a four stroke motor its impressive that the weight has remained simillar .

Aha! I see a flaw in your argument Baldrick! How come, with the addition of the same complexity, trials bikes weights have dropped by 30 Kgs in the same period?
Magnesium, aluminium & reduced physical size/mass centralisation, mx bikes have got taller & longer as suspension increased but trials bikes haven't increased by much in suspension over the same period especially the forks
I remember reading that there is a limit to how much travel the front forks can have in a trials bike before it makes a real mess of the steering geometry, somewhere around 185mm which seems to be what they've settled on for years
Title: Re: A Bikes Weight
Post by: TooFastTim on March 28, 2013, 10:23:16 am
Good point(s) Tony
Title: Re: A Bikes Weight
Post by: Tahitian_Red on March 28, 2013, 11:03:04 am
I have a 1977 YZ400 and a 2008 YZ450F sitting side by side in my garage.  If anything I would say the 2008 feels a few pounds heavier lifting it on the stand, but not so much out on the track.
Title: Re: A Bikes Weight
Post by: 80-85 husky on March 30, 2013, 01:32:16 pm
Guys, with all the "fresh air" under the guards now, its a wonder new bikes aren't heaps lighter ;D :D ;)