This is probably a really silly question Pete ....
Was there a reason you opted for using the DT frame with KLX dangly bits, as opposed to using the KLX roller with the DT motor.
I'll let Pete answer that but I'm prtetty sure the answer is "because I can" or "the bits were there"
.
I would have thought that a superb handling bike (KLX) with an engine such as yours would be perfect.
An interesting question Grouty
. I was thinking of the same thing but thinking of it in reverse - would the LTR and LT/front improve or change the basic characteristics of the centre loop?
The DT frame is essential the MX250/360/SC500 frame in every regard (AFAIK - with a few extra brackets welded on). I don't think it is a hopeless MX frame when it comes to strength and integrity. The geometry might be a little questioned for MX (The MX/DT was intended more for high speed (Play racing, Socal desert, trail and street) rather than cutting a line inside a Maico). The 'so so' cheap mass production suspension would only exasperate any geometry limitations. I believe the MX chassis can be improved by improving the suspension, quicken the steering by reducing the trail and lengthening the swingarm (25mm). The dangling bits that Pete is adding will address all of these issues - for better or worst remains to be seen.
I would also question the assumption that the KLX is a great handling frame - I think it was a very 'untaxed' frame with the puny KL250 20hp trying to pull it out of shape and propel it forward
. A tuned DT400 will be a very different proposition to the KL250 motor.
Besides, I think this approach is new and will give a very 'factory' appearance that will confound the pundits
.