Quote:
Originally Posted by dmstarr
How much better was the gasser (boomhauer's bike in particular) than yout KTM experiences?
|
While Boomer's bike exhibited the odd aroma of last week's bean burritos, it behaved nicely.
Quote:
|
Did the test ride make you more or less confident in a decision to buy a gasser?
|
It makes me quite confident in a Gas Gas purchase for a few, very critical reasons. Keep in mind that I only started riding (after a twenty-year layoff) last summer, so my needs are different from the owners of these bikes, one of which was a MC250 in full MX power, and the other was an unknown quantity -- neither of which could be rightly guaranteed to be very EC-like.
When I test rode the Honda and Yammie 4Ts, and the KTM 2t and 4Ts, I looked for things that felt odd (am I riding the bike or is the bike riding me?). The Honda CRF450X/R were sweet in the suspension department but didn't turn fast enough for me and I don't like 4Ts.
The 2004 to 2006 KTMs showed gradual improvement, but they were no better than my KX-forked KDX in the boinger department (rear end). The 2007 was vastly improved but still not as good as the Gasser. 2008 Katooms are said to be better than the '07s but I've not gotten a chance to ride the few that are in Phoenix, and I doubt that I'll get the same 20-miles from local Phoenix riders that G-Man and Boomer would bestow me, an Internet stranger.
1) The ergos fit me nearly perfectly.
a) I'll ride while standing more confidently
b) The lower seat will do wonders for my stability in turns
c) The lower seat will save me from tip-overs when stalled off-camber
2) The bike tracked straight and true through sections worthy of testing. Better than anything, perhaps even the Honda (which felt like a horse).
This despite both bikes being valved taughter than I would prefer (though I began to get used to it.
3) The bike turned the way I wanted it to. That is, when I pointed it somehwhere, it went that way at the rate that I had intuitively selected. That does not mean that it steered fast, but still slow enough for someone of my C-minus skills. I mean that it was easy to control. It could turn way faster if I had wanted it to, but I didn't. The KTM 200 that I rode was too skittish. Small inputs meant quick turns. It was twitchy and I couldn't modulate it well -- part of the problem was that I was so busy trying to keep the Katoom 200 up in the revs were it produced enough torque that I was all too often behind the bike. A good rider wouldn't have had the problem, but I'm not a good rider, and I don't like to ride on the pipe.
4) Speaking of on-the-pipe, let's talk about the motor. I had wondered if that MX-based MC250 would require me to be on the pipe, say, like a KTM 250SX. It didn't. I know this because I'm naturally a short-shifting chugger. That's why I want a 300, I guess. The MC was pretty happy at low RPMs. I did stall it a couple of times, but that was a symptom of lack of flywheel weight that the EC300, or the EC250 wouldn't share.
The main thing about that motor is that the power was delivered smoothly. I mentioned earlier that I could detect no hit along the rev range, and as I say that I have trouble believing that. It had to have a hit somewhere, right? But I didn't notice it. Maybe I didn't rev it high enough to find it. Or maybe the bike produced so much power at 650 feet that my low-seat time nerve endings couldn't detect it. But I surely was able to detect hits on SXs, XCs, Xs and Rs.
Still, the MC had too much wheel spin for my tastes since I ride rocky hills and need control, but a flywheel, EC CDI mapping, and a big Maxxis tire would tame that.
So, am I toally convinced that this test ride steered me in the direction of an EC300? Not 100%, since I didn't ride one. I'm sure that Girard and Boomer would be better able to discuss the differences between their bikes and the EC 300.
You're up, boys.
Rick