just so you know

[klr250not]

of its weight (337 dry) in the world. Aprilia RS250 is the one mentioned thats clearly lighter and faster--310 lbs and 1/2 mile in 12.5 seconds. But in looking it up I learned it was a street-legal replica of a 250 GP racer, with similar specs to the racer, and is no longer available. So now we're reaching into the GP racer world to find a bike thats clearly lighter and faster than the KLR 650. Its great to even mention GP racer and KLR 650 in the same sentence.

[ENSEMBLE J-HOLLAND]

The RS250 was a good bike but I think there may be a bit of marketing speak there. They are both v twin 2 strokes though The road version used a tweaked Suzuki RGV250 road bike engine. Of course you could probably put a KLR engine in one, that sort of conversion was very popular in the UK for single cylinder racing (Supermono). The KLR engine doesn't tune up very well though. Years ago a chap I used to race with sleeved down a KLR600 engine to 500cc to meet the capacity limit, he got it finished just as the season ended and they announced that the capacity limit was to rise to 600cc. IIRC it was built into an old steel TZ frame. Maybe I should try my engine in my old Tigcraft chassis - hmm, second thoughts I'll stick to the Honda engine. klr250not wrote: of its weight (337 dry) in the world. Aprilia RS250 is the one mentioned thats clearly lighter and faster--310 lbs and 1/2 mile in 12.5 seconds. But in looking it up I learned it was a street-legal replica of a 250 GP racer, with similar specs to the racer, and is no longer available. So now we're reaching into the GP racer world to find a bike thats clearly lighter and faster than the KLR 650. Its great to even mention GP racer and KLR 650 in the same sentence. Archive Quicksearch at: http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Jud Jones]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "klr250not" wrote:

> > of its weight (337 dry) in the world. Aprilia RS250 is the one > mentioned thats clearly lighter and faster--310 lbs and 1/2 mile in > 12.5 seconds. But in looking it up I learned it was a street-legal > replica of a 250 GP racer, with similar specs to the racer, and is > no longer available. > > So now we're reaching into the GP racer world to find a bike thats > clearly lighter and faster than the KLR 650. Its great to even > mention GP racer and KLR 650 in the same sentence.

[Jud Jones]

> > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "klr250not" wrote: > > > > of its weight (337 dry) in the world. Aprilia RS250 is the one > > mentioned thats clearly lighter and faster--310 lbs and 1/2 mile in > > 12.5 seconds. But in looking it up I learned it was a street-legal > > replica of a 250 GP racer, with similar specs to the racer, and is > > no longer available. > > > > So now we're reaching into the GP racer world to find a bike thats > > clearly lighter and faster than the KLR 650. Its great to even > > mention GP racer and KLR 650 in the same sentence.

Is this a troll? I have a mid-80s Honda XL600R. I don't know what it weighs, but it's lighter than my KLR, and faster. So now we're reaching into the 18-year-old beater bike world to find a bike that's lighter and faster than the KLR. It's great to even mention them in the same sentence.

[klr250not]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Jud Jones" wrote: I was curious about the XR650L, a good bike generally regarded as a little more off-road oriented and a little less street oriented than the KLR 650. Just relocated a dynochart on a recent model: http://tinyurl.com/48a87 31hp at the rear wheel vs 36 at least for the KLR 650, and the Hondas geared more for offroad riding than the KLR. So lighter? Yep, by 13 lbs. Faster 0 to 60 or 1/4 mile?--I don't think so. The Suzuki DR400S is worth a look too--havent found anything on it yet. > > I have a mid-80s Honda XL600R. I don't know what it weighs, but it's lighter than my KLR, > and faster. So now we're reaching into the 18-year-old beater bike world to find a bike > that's lighter and faster than the KLR. It's great to even mention them in the same > sentence.

[Randy Shultz]

In real life, absolute weight is not the end-all criteria. You're giving the impression that the KLR is fast on the street relative to the competition. Someone else was recently quoted as saying that the KLR is one of the best street bikes made. These are the comments that new purchasers of the KLR who don't get a chance to ride the bike before buying it find misleading, and can lead to disappointment. There is a complete dearth of street bikes in the 300-600 cc engine range in the United States. That's the only reason you can't find a production bike that's lighter than the KLR with better quarter mile times. Take a look at the SV650 for example. it is 40 pounds heavier than the KLR. But its 650 cc twin engine makes almost exactly twice the horsepower as the KLR's 650 single. The hp/weight ratio is clearly superior, and it carries its weight lower and has better street suspension. Quite simply, I can ride it on the street faster, including through the twisties, than I can my KLR. In fact, for street use, I prefer it over my KLR in every respect. What it CAN'T do, even in its DL650 derivative in my opinion, is off- road like my KLR. THAT's why people should buy a KLR. Because it is a tremendous "dual purpouse" value. Why spend all this time and energy trying to prove it's fast on the street? It's not. At least not compared to what most people think of as "fast".

[klr250not]

Other posters we're describing the KLR as SLOW and lawnmower like, unable to get out a Hyundais way. So I went looking for actual data and low and behold it seems to be darn near "the fastest street legal production motorcycle of its weight (337 dry or less) in the world". As to why the energy--I kind of enjoy discussing/researching performance data and specs. Others like talking about mechanical mods and repairs. Skip over the stuff that doesnt interest you, thats my advice. Youre absolutely right about the SV 650 and the much greater speed available from sportbikes or near-sportbikes if move up just 20 lbs or so in weight. But I'm not worried about misleading an SV 650 candidate into a KLR 650--theyre going to know the difference between a dual-purpose and a sportbike. When they get to the showroom if not before. - In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Shultz" wrote:

> > In real life, absolute weight is not the end-all criteria. You're > giving the impression that the KLR is fast on the street relative

to

> the competition. Someone else was recently quoted as saying that

the

> KLR is one of the best street bikes made. These are the comments > that new purchasers of the KLR who don't get a chance to ride the > bike before buying it find misleading, and can lead to

disappointment.

> > There is a complete dearth of street bikes in the 300-600 cc

engine

> range in the United States. That's the only reason you can't find

a

> production bike that's lighter than the KLR with better quarter

mile

> times. > > Take a look at the SV650 for example. it is 40 pounds heavier

than

> the KLR. But its 650 cc twin engine makes almost exactly twice

the

> horsepower as the KLR's 650 single. The hp/weight ratio is

clearly

> superior, and it carries its weight lower and has better street > suspension. Quite simply, I can ride it on the street faster, > including through the twisties, than I can my KLR. In fact, for > street use, I prefer it over my KLR in every respect. > > What it CAN'T do, even in its DL650 derivative in my opinion, is

off-

> road like my KLR. THAT's why people should buy a KLR. Because it

is

> a tremendous "dual purpouse" value. > > Why spend all this time and energy trying to prove it's fast on

the

> street? It's not. At least not compared to what most people

think

> of as "fast".

[Jud Jones]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "klr250not" wrote:

> > Other posters we're describing the KLR as SLOW and lawnmower like, > unable to get out a Hyundais way. So I went looking for actual data > and low and behold it seems to be darn near "the fastest street > legal production motorcycle of its weight (337 dry or less) in the > world". >

Let's just say it "just might be darn near the fastest documented street legal 337 lb (claimed) production motorcycle of its weight with a (nominal) 6.1 gallon tank", and leave it at that.

[ron criswell]

In my experience the KLR while not blinding fast certainly has a very usable power band for the street. I went riding with a friend who has an ST1100 and he couldn't believe how well I was getting off the line against him. We weren't racing but my KLR who he always was badmouthing had no trouble keeping up with his speed in real world traffic. I have not ridden his bike but if his power band is similar to my Concourse, the Connie doesn't wake up till about 7 grand right where the KLR is finished and it redlines around 10,500 or 11 (I forget). And if I am close to reline on the Connie, I am going to get either thrown in jail or a big ticket sooner or later. The last ticket I got was doing 80 in a 70 and that was $100. Good he didn't catch me 10 minutes before when I was doing 110 mph. Criswell Randy Shultz wrote:

> In real life, absolute weight is not the end-all criteria. You're > giving the impression that the KLR is fast on the street relative to > the competition. Someone else was recently quoted as saying that the > KLR is one of the best street bikes made. These are the comments > that new purchasers of the KLR who don't get a chance to ride the > bike before buying it find misleading, and can lead to disappointment. > > There is a complete dearth of street bikes in the 300-600 cc engine > range in the United States. That's the only reason you can't find a > production bike that's lighter than the KLR with better quarter mile > times. > > Take a look at the SV650 for example. it is 40 pounds heavier than > the KLR. But its 650 cc twin engine makes almost exactly twice the > horsepower as the KLR's 650 single. The hp/weight ratio is clearly > superior, and it carries its weight lower and has better street > suspension. Quite simply, I can ride it on the street faster, > including through the twisties, than I can my KLR. In fact, for > street use, I prefer it over my KLR in every respect. > > What it CAN'T do, even in its DL650 derivative in my opinion, is off- > road like my KLR. THAT's why people should buy a KLR. Because it is > a tremendous "dual purpouse" value. > > Why spend all this time and energy trying to prove it's fast on the > street? It's not. At least not compared to what most people think > of as "fast". > > Archive Quicksearch at: http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html > List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com > List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >

[Tom Hayslett]

I never looked at the KLR as the 'fastest street legal sub 337 lb' bike - was never a factor in deciding what to buy. When I bought the KLR, I owned a 96 GPZ 1100 - a blazingly fast sport touring bike. It was a thrill to ride - but the thrill was soon over when the highway stretched out. The KLR lets me turn off the roads and get to the top of the hills - less crowded and better views. For some reason I'm usually smiling when I get there also - a factor that I was starting to lose on the sportier bike. I have since sold the GPZ (it suffered the 'not getting ridden enough' syndrome since I got the KLR). The other benefits? - Not as much worry about tickets (the GPZ idled at about 110) and insurance is actually affordable. Tom