Wilsons Sandbox

> From: "EdgyDrifter" > While riding in my favorite trail area today met up with a guy on a 97 KTM > 620 lc something, whichever the designation is for duel purpose. This was > the first time I have been able to " go up against" some other comparable > bike,,,displacement and purpose wise. After hours on logging roads and > single tracks we both came to the conclusion...ktm is a much better dirt > bike...klr is a much better duel purpose bike. > In the rough uneven stuff his 100 lbs lighter really paid off...could

dance

> over stuff I would claw my way through...but then when we came on some > logging road that was not too rutted...I could pull away and keep ahead > without feeling I was about to washout. > Then came the real test...we got back down to the pavement and I headed > off while he had to load his bike in his truck while saying he'll never

get his

> bike over sixty again... > I realize this not a true "shootout",but it was real world and both

riders

> felt good about their bikes, and are going to ride together again next > weekend....fun...fun...fun...! Mark

I ride with a vintage motocross racer who rides a KTM 640 LC4. This rider, in the spirit of dual sporting, will ride all day on pavement getting to and from trails at any speed up to top speed for both our bikes: a little over 100MPH indicated. He routinely cruises between trail heads for 100 miles or more on pavement at 80-90 MPH indicated. Last weekend, on a two-day trip to southeastern Utah, we rode about 260 miles of pavement and 100 miles of primitive dirt the first day and 300 miles of pavement the second day. He was using Michelin full knobbies. He consistently rode at speeds of 80-85 MPH on pavement with occasional bursts of 100MPH. We have ridden at speeds up to 90 MPH on good gravel roads and hard packed sand roads. We have been to southeastern Utah three times this spring. You are right: it's "....fun...fun...fun...!" Here's what I think: 1) The KTM is better in the rough stuff because it's lighter and has a superior suspension. 2) The KTM LC4 is less than 40 lbs lighter than a 650KLR in dry weight (specs bear this out). Even with both fuel tanks full, the KTM is not 100 lbs lighter. But the KTM does not feel as top heavy as a KLR. 3) Both bikes, stock, are equally matched on acceleration and top end. 4) The KTM has more engine vibration but it's not a big deal. 5) The KTM engine has better low end torque. (perspective: if you know Canyonlands' White Rim Trail -- I climbed Murphy's Hogback casually and without drama in 2nd gear on the KTM. I chickened out and went to low on my KLR. Both bikes had similar overall gearing.) 6) The KLR has a more comfortable seat. (But: on the 660-mile, two-day ride described above my friend never complained about his seat and I didn't see him fidgeting much. When asked, he shrugged it off as "...not as bad as I thought it would be." He's in his fifties -- it should be easy for a young person.) 7) We both routinely get fifty MPG or better riding as described above. Typically, if he fills up with 3.5 gallons (he has the 4.5 gallon OEM tank) I add about 3.3. 8) The factory-installed SuperTrap exhaust on the KTM is as quiet as the stock exhaust on the KLR. I like both bikes. The remarkable thing is the KLR works well and costs so much less than the KTM. As for wash outs on logging roads... well, I say if you pulled ahead and stayed ahead then you are the better rider. In my opinion, two riders on similar machines are first comparing riders and secondly comparing machines. If you want to make a better comparison between your KLR and the 620 KTM, ride both bikes over the same course. I don't think you will find you have to slow down for logging roads or pavement on the KTM. Here's another observation: when we meet other riders on "real" dirt bikes in difficult places, they stare at the KLR, not the KTM. One guy recently, on a XR600R, said "I've got a KLR at home." His manner suggested he wouldn't be riding it where we were. No one was surprised to see a KTM there. It's all fun. I would love to have a KTM. But as my friend says, "Why? The KLR works well for you." Verle Nelson Cedaredge, CO

2) The KTM LC4 is less than 40 lbs lighter than a 650KLR in dry weight (specs bear this out). Even with both fuel tanks full, the KTM is not 100 lbs lighter. But the KTM does not feel as top heavy as a KLR. I was just going by what he said his weighed... 3) Both bikes, stock, are equally matched on acceleration and top end. His bike had some Elderbrock aftermarket carb and a super loud SuperTrap. His bike had better low end, mine better top end.. 4) The KTM has more engine vibration but it's not a big deal. Didn't ride his, but may go out and get one soon. 5) The KTM engine has better low end torque. (perspective: if you know Canyonlands' White Rim Trail -- I climbed Murphy's Hogback casually and without drama in 2nd gear on the KTM. I chickened out and went to low on my KLR. Both bikes had similar overall gearing.) If your familiar with Mica Peak Washington, it's nothing but rutted single track hills and filled with those grapefruit sized rocks that are so popular with us KLR riders...then down below they have cut some newer roads for logging which are nice when damp, otherwise its slidy hell... We have a big rock too...it eats KTM and KLR skid plates with equel relish, we both decided we hate it when we slam into a rock face and get your bottom end hung and start to slide back down...caution...rider may bail at anytime.... 6) The KLR has a more comfortable seat. (But: on the 660-mile, two-day ride described above my friend never complained about his seat and I didn't see him fidgeting much. When asked, he shrugged it off as "...not as bad as I thought it would be." He's in his fifties -- it should be easy for a young person.) 660 miles, my butt will be aching no matter which of my bikes I'm riding. Did a five hundred mile one day romp over to Kalispell a couple of weeks ago on my KZ, i.e...."the big comfy couch" and was glad when I got home that night... 7) We both routinely get fifty MPG or better riding as described above. Typically, if he fills up with 3.5 gallons (he has the 4.5 gallon OEM tank) I add about 3.3. I cant get over 45 with my bike...what's up with that? 8) The factory-installed SuperTrap exhaust on the KTM is as quiet as the stock exhaust on the KLR. I don't know what SuperTrap he had, but quiet is not in the brochure for it... I like both bikes. The remarkable thing is the KLR works well and costs so much less than the KTM. As for wash outs on logging roads... well, I say if you pulled ahead and stayed ahead then you are the better rider. In my opinion, two riders on similar machines are first comparing riders and secondly comparing machines. If you want to make a better comparison between your KLR and the 620 KTM, ride both bikes over the same course. I don't think you will find you have to slow down for logging roads or pavement on the KTM. I don't slow down for anything!!! Well, maybe moose and black bear...or ruts...sand...gravel...Kelly humps...trees over the road...occasional road washouts...hey, wait a minute...I slow down a lot!!!! Here's another observation: when we meet other riders on "real" dirt bikes in difficult places, they stare at the KLR, not the KTM. One guy recently, on a XR600R, said "I've got a KLR at home." His manner suggested he wouldn't be riding it where we were. No one was surprised to see a KTM there. Then again, no one would be suprised to see a KLR on the street, but the KTM guys will get a double take or two.. It's all fun. I would love to have a KTM. But as my friend says, "Why? The KLR works well for you." True enough, but in a death match in dirt...the KTM will dance on the shattered hulks of our beloved beasts!!! ;^) Verle Nelson Cedaredge, CO I get more stares than I like to admit, especially when I come barreling out of the underbrush into a group of riders sitting around poking their machines...my mirrors bent at some odd angle...usually they look like they can't believe anyone would ride the whale where they ride. Remember to have fun while riding!!!!! Mark Gardner Spokane Washington ------------------------------------------------------------------------ eGroups members: $60 in FREE calls! Join beMANY! And pay less each month for long distance. http://click.egroups.com/1/4122/5/_/911801/_/960130527/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Visit the KLR650 archives at http://www.listquest.com/lq/search.html?ln=klr650 Support Dual Sport News... dsneditor@... Let's keep this list SPAM free! Visit our site at http://www.egroups.com/group/DSN_klr650 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: DSN_klr650-unsubscribe@egroups.com

> From: "EdgyDrifter" > I cant get over 45 [MPG] with my bike...what's up with that?

KLR 650 fuel mileage is a recurring subject on this list. Some even go so far as to say they don't believe those who claim 50 MPG or better. A few, though, also claim over 50 MPG. The older riders among us have learned to appreciate the overall performance advantages of stock engines, intake and exhaust systems. It's not that we don't believe it's possible to increase performance, but we notice that many people think they have when they haven't. I mention this because usually the bikes that get over 50 MPG have stock exhaust, unmodified air boxes, and stock jetting. I check my fuel mileage with each fill-up and it has been a long time since I've dropped below 50 MPG, even with a 14 tooth countershaft sprocket, even running at the speeds I mentioned earlier. But I ride a lot of pavement getting to and from trails. The tank is large enough to offset the lesser mileage I might get on trails. If your KLR is modified in ways I mentioned above, then 45 MPG sounds pretty good. My odometer checks less than 1% error, which is typical I believe. It's the speedometer itself that usually has the greater error, by design I'm sure. Verle Nelson Cedaredge, CO

Hello again Mine is stock too, engine wise. The only mods I have made are the metal bash plate and highway pegs. I may be a victim of going between trail use and then highway use with not much in between. I was wondering how you liked dropping a tooth on your front sprocket? Is their a noticeable increase in torque? Also what kind of revs are you pulling at lets say seventy? I read where one of the listers thinks it's a good idea to keep your bike under 5000 rpm's. At those revs I'm right at 72 mph. I take it you leave the 14 on without switching back and forth like some do. I've read where ppl who switch sprockets shorten chain/sprocket(s) life considerably. I do a fair amount of freeway riding too so this is interesting. Have you done any suspension mods? Was wondering if there was a practical way to make it more stable in the dirt, besides experimenting with tires. Thanks....Mark -----Original Message----- From: Verle Nelson [mailto:whimsy@...] Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 11:14 AM To: DSN_KLR650 list Subject: Re: [DSN_klr650] KLR vs KTM shootout

> From: "EdgyDrifter" > I cant get over 45 [MPG] with my bike...what's up with that?

KLR 650 fuel mileage is a recurring subject on this list. Some even go so far as to say they don't believe those who claim 50 MPG or better. A few, though, also claim over 50 MPG. The older riders among us have learned to appreciate the overall performance advantages of stock engines, intake and exhaust systems. It's not that we don't believe it's possible to increase performance, but we notice that many people think they have when they haven't. I mention this because usually the bikes that get over 50 MPG have stock exhaust, unmodified air boxes, and stock jetting. I check my fuel mileage with each fill-up and it has been a long time since I've dropped below 50 MPG, even with a 14 tooth countershaft sprocket, even running at the speeds I mentioned earlier. But I ride a lot of pavement getting to and from trails. The tank is large enough to offset the lesser mileage I might get on trails. If your KLR is modified in ways I mentioned above, then 45 MPG sounds pretty good. My odometer checks less than 1% error, which is typical I believe. It's the speedometer itself that usually has the greater error, by design I'm sure. Verle Nelson Cedaredge, CO ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Would you like to save big on your phone bill -- and keep on saving more each month? Join beMANY! Our huge buying group gives you Long Distance rates which fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls! http://click.egroups.com/1/2567/5/_/911801/_/960142628/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Visit the KLR650 archives at http://www.listquest.com/lq/search.html?ln=klr650 Support Dual Sport News... dsneditor@... Let's keep this list SPAM free! Visit our site at http://www.egroups.com/group/DSN_klr650 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: DSN_klr650-unsubscribe@egroups.com

> From: "Walter Lesnowich" > My KLR is in stock form engine wise and I have averaged > 51.3 MPG over the last 1500 miles since I began keeping > track of it. I have had a high of 57 MPG on paved backroads > keeping it under 50 MPH to a low of 40 MPG on interstate > highway running 90 MPH indicated climbing hills with a full > load but I think the gas which for that run was oxygenated also > contributed to the poor mileage.

Sounds right to me. I, too, had a low-forties experience running at high speed for a long stretch of Interstate shortly after ending break-in mileage. Now, with 8000 miles on the bike, it does well even under those circumstances. Verle Nelson Cedaredge, CO

> From: "EdgyDrifter" > I was wondering how you liked dropping a tooth on your front sprocket? > Is their a noticeable increase in torque? Also what kind of revs are you > pulling at lets say seventy? I read where one of the listers thinks it's a > good idea to keep your bike under 5000 rpm's. At those revs I'm right > at 72 mph. I take it you leave the 14 on without switching back and > forth like some do. I've read where ppl who switch sprockets shorten > chain/sprocket(s) life considerably. I do a fair amount of freeway riding > too so this is interesting.

Switching from a stock 15 tooth countershaft sprocket to a 14 tooth countershaft sprocket makes a little over 7% increase in revolutions at any given speed. My KLR will not pull redline in fifth gear with stock gearing so top speed is unaffected by the 14 tooth countershaft sprocket. In two slightly-over-100MPH short runs last Sunday, I forgot to check RPM. As I recall, I'm turning about 5850 RPM cruising at 80MPH indicated. It probably *is* better to keep the engine under 5000 RPM but I bought it to ride. If I don't go over 7000 RPM often it's only because the engine seems well beyond it's power peak by then. But I digress: 7% may not sound like much improvement in torque multiplication, but it seems like more to the rider -- especially on steep, rock-strewn trails such as you described earlier. On the other hand, when I first installed the 14 tooth countershaft sprocket I didn't like it on the pavement. It seemed like it actually hurt acceleration. But it does make the big heavy KLR feel much more like a dirt bike and it helps a lot in rough terrain. No, I don't switch back and forth because I don't mind running at high RPM. Four weekends of hard riding and a couple thousand miles of pavement have required no chain adjustment. If you haven't already, you can download an interesting freeware program, GearCalc, that lets you calculate the effects of gearing changes. Most parameter information you can get from your manual; rear tire circumference you can measure by placing a carpenter level on the top of the rear tire and measuring from the floor to the bottom of the level (assuming your floor is level) and multiplying by 3.14. You can download GearCalc at: http://www.geocities.com/~klrdsn/page31.html

> Have you done any suspension mods? Was > wondering if there was a practical way to make it more stable in the dirt, > besides experimenting with tires.

My springs are stock, front and rear. I don't know what you weigh, but here's a good way to judge whether or not your stock suspension is adequate. If you bottom the suspension occasionally during hard off-pavement riding, then that means the suspension is working for you and you don't need stiffer springs. Why have long travel suspension if you can't use it because it's too stiff? If you bottom the suspension repeatedly during hard off-pavement riding, then you may want to consider stiffer springs. Before I bought new rear springs, though, I would try increasing the spring preload. If you do increase the rear spring preload, increase the rebound dampening as well or you may experience a "bouncy" rear end. As for making the KLR more stable in the dirt, I'm not sure where or what kind of dirt you find it unstable. I thought it handled rather well. It does have problems in soft dirt or sand. The small, narrow 21 inch front tire on such a heavy motorcycle sinks quickly causing the tire contact patch to move forward, reducing trail, possibly even to negative, and you end up trying to push a caster backwards -- in other words, the front end wobbles. But this is a characteristic rather than a design flaw. Suspension geometry is always a compromise. The solution is in riding style but difficult and perhaps inappropriate to discuss too casually because it can also be dangerous. In my opinion, the best improvement you can make to the KLR's handling does not involve the KLR at all. Beg, borrow or buy a small, low-geared trail bike, or better yet a trials bike from the seventies, and practice observed trials-type riding -- not the extreme trials of today, but something more like vintage trials. I can almost guarantee that such practice will make you a better and faster rider on the KLR, or any thing else for that matter. Verle Nelson Cedaredge, CO

Verle writes in response to "Edgy Drifter":

> > Have you done any suspension mods? Was > > wondering if there was a practical way to make it more stable

in the dirt,

> > besides experimenting with tires. > > My springs are stock, front and rear. I don't know what you

weigh, but

> here's a good way to judge whether or not your stock suspension

is adequate.

> If you bottom the suspension occasionally during hard

off-pavement riding,

> then that means the suspension is working for you and you don't

need stiffer

> springs. Why have long travel suspension if you can't use it

because it's

> too stiff? If you bottom the suspension repeatedly during hard

off-pavement

> riding, then you may want to consider stiffer springs. Before I

bought new

> rear springs, though, I would try increasing the spring

preload. If you do

> increase the rear spring preload, increase the rebound

dampening as well or

> you may experience a "bouncy" rear end. > > As for making the KLR more stable in the dirt, I'm not sure

where or what

> kind of dirt you find it unstable. I thought it handled rather

well. It does

> have problems in soft dirt or sand. The small, narrow 21 inch

front tire on

> such a heavy motorcycle sinks quickly causing the tire contact

patch to move

> forward, reducing trail, possibly even to negative, and you end

up trying to

> push a caster backwards -- in other words, the front end

wobbles. But this

> is a characteristic rather than a design flaw. Suspension

geometry is always

> a compromise. The solution is in riding style but difficult and

perhaps

> inappropriate to discuss too casually because it can also be

dangerous.

> > In my opinion, the best improvement you can make to the KLR's

handling does

> not involve the KLR at all. Beg, borrow or buy a small,

low-geared trail

> bike, or better yet a trials bike from the seventies, and

practice observed

> trials-type riding -- not the extreme trials of today, but

something more

> like vintage trials. I can almost guarantee that such practice

will make you

> a better and faster rider on the KLR, or any thing else for

that matter.

> > Verle Nelson > Cedaredge, CO

After farting around with off-road racing for years, I've seen that a good general rule of thumb for rear suspension is that the rear end should sag about 1/2~1" under the bike's weight alone; with rider/load, rear sag should be about 30~35% of total suspension travel (for KLR with 9" travel that should be about 3"). If you adjust Loaded Sag to 3" and Unloaded Sag is less than 1/2", your rear spring is too soft; more than 1" unladen sag and the spring is too stiff (under same test conditions). Similar rules apply to front fork springs. Unless you're under 170pounds, KLR suspension is too soft which is probly why Progressive springs are so popular: it seems most of us haven't seen the low side of 170 in a while..... At a dressed-out weight of , I find the Progressive LR series fork and shock springs to be a damned good compromise - not too soft, not too stiff - with 15W fork oil at 175mm and rear rebound setting on "2". Verle is dead right that if suspension is so stiff that only a portion is used under your riding conditions the unused portion is wasted. On most every trail I ride there are a thousand small bumps for every big one, and I'd rather slow down for the big hits and make time and be comfy on the rest. The one caveat to the "Soft Is Better" idea is that the big bumps seem to sneak up on me on those same trails I ride, and with a beefier spring set those don't put me in as much jeopardy of a Close Encounter with the scenery. Tom Bowman Atlanta A14

i must drive like a real sissy. i consistently get 55-60 mpg, even with 30-40% dirt roads and panniers, (and mtbe in my gas), but then i drive fairly slowly on the freeway, rarely faster than 70, usually 60-65, and alot of my riding is back roads in 4th and 5th gear. mw

> My KLR is in stock form engine wise and I have averaged > 51.3 MPG over the last 1500 miles since I began keeping > track of it. I have had a high of 57 MPG on paved backroads > keeping it under 50 MPH to a low of 40 MPG on interstate > highway running 90 MPH indicated climbing hills with a full > load but I think the gas which for that run was oxygenated also > contributed to the poor mileage. >

From: Chris Krok To: Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 11:39 AM Subject: KLR650 list rules

> Hi, Arne... Or is that "Mister Meister?" > > What are the rules regarding crass commercialism on the KLR650 news > group? I've just machined a shark fin for my A5, that bolts on to the > existing holes in the axle carrier, and has an extra bracket for > support. It looks like all years use the same brake carrier, so it > should fit any model. Also, the foreman of our machine shop said he'd > be willing to program it into the CNC mill, so I could get jiggy with > the weight reduction cutouts (a la Scott Performance). What this all > amounts to is that I'd be interested in selling these if there's enough > interest on the list. I know that a couple of you guys sell your custom > luggage racks, etc., but it doesn't look like you advertise at all. I > guess word of mouth is pretty well entrenched by now! Is it alright for > me to mention this on the list once I'm ready, and direct people to my > web page or something? Thanks a bunch! > > Chris

It's just been mentioned! =-) You're right ... we don't do a lot of advertising on the list... but please feel free to put the info up on a website and include the URL in your signature. Cheers, Arne