Kawasaki Versys

[RadioHowie]

i sat on one the other day
to me it seems even taller than my FJR(insert funny short-legged person jokes here)

erm.....you're a funny short-legged person? Snerk!

 

[sonicspeed]

i sat on one the other day
to me it seems even taller than my FJR(insert funny short-legged person jokes here)

erm.....you're a funny short-legged person? Snerk!

that's better than what most people call me

 

[markjenn]

I wonder how the Versys would work as a DS, with different tires of course?

Dunno if this discussion is still active, but there is a similar discussion over on Advrider so I'll chime in. While I'm sure a Versys would handle an occasional graded fire road just fine, if you're interested in any thing dual-sport oriented, then the small Strom would be a better choice. It mounts a 19" front wheel and you can find some decent 50-50 dual-sport rubber in this size (e.g., TKC80s). The 17" front end on the Versys is pretty much a strictly street or, at best, 90-10 tire size. Chunkier tires (and the extra diameter) will make a Strom do a lot better in the dirt.

Just the standard tradeoffs here - the Versys, by all accounts, is the better pavement-handling bike, slightly smaller, and slightly lighter.

My experience is that way too many people discount the off-road liabilities of 17" front ends on bikes like the DRZ400SM, Versys, Multistrada, Ulysses, and new Tiger. They see upside down forks, wider rubber, and the motard look and it immediately becomes the cooler bike and they assume it would be more/less the same in the dirt as machines that can mount much better rubber. But there is a reason that more off-road oriented machines have 19" front wheels, or better yet, 21" front wheels like on KTM Adventurer and the new F800GS. If you ever have the chance to ride off-road on something like a DRZ400S and a DRZ400SM back-to-back, you can't believe the difference - it's like night-day. Of course, on the pavement, the SM reverses the pecking order.

It all depends on what you want to do with the bike.

- Mark

 

[charismaticmegafauna]

The Versys (may?) also have another somewhat disturbing mark against it for prospective dual-sport use -- the parallel-twin engine. This type of engine design often doesn't offer the kind of rear wheel traction that's appreciated off-road. When the going gets rough/loose/slippery, the parallel twin often spins the back tire too easily -- and higher-horsepower verticle twins (w/360 cranks) do that even easier. V-Twins hook-up better and singles are as good as it gets.

I'm in agreement with 'markjenn' on tires and off-road -- (DOT) tires designed for off-road, even dual-sport, will go a long way in helping you get there and stay up-right (limited traction off-road).

To add another wrinkle to this discussion: what do you think are the merits (or, unworthiness) of the relative wheel-bases of these models? (Appears to favor the Versys, here?) There seems to be a great variation: from the Versys 56", Multisrada 57", KLR 58", thru the DLs 1000 60" 650 61"(what's up w/that -- 650 being longer than 1000?), to the long-ish F800GS 62+".

How do you think these wheel-bases will affect the handling/versatility of these bikes? My take is -- traditionally, longer wheel-bases offer slow, less responsive, handling and more severe lean angles when cornering on the highway. I don't know of any advantages for long wheel-base (except maybe stability)?

'markjenn', is Advrider discussing this aspect...?

 

[bandit]

I wanted one till I rode one as a demo at biketoberfest. Just seemed very odd in handling and seat felt like I was falling into the gas tank all the time crushing the boys. Ergos didint feel right on me

 

[markjenn]

The new F800GS has a fairly long wheelbase as does the KTM 990 Adventure. Conversely, the shortest wheelbases these days tend to be on the full-on sportbikes. I'll also note that mountain bicycles tend to have much longer wheelbases than road bicycles. So I think the tendency in the dirt is to go for more wheelbase, more rake/trail, and bigger front wheels for stability and better ability to roll over objects. On the street, where the roads are smooth, you can trade off this stability and go for quicker handling. It also may have something to do with different CG's, the slower speeds involved, and that dirt bikes tend to have wide, high-leverage handlebars.

So I'd bet the Versys shorter wheelbase vs. the Strom is simply to make it more road-oriented, just like the rest of the package. People compare it to the Strom a great deal, but it's really a package much closer to the Multistrada and Tiger. I think the Versys uses the same frame as the 650R Ninja sportbike, but with different suspension and swingarm. Whereas as the Strom has a completely different frame presumably designed around the 19" front wheel, with a longer wheelbase and more stability. I can comment that a DL650 is a baby-carriage of a motorcycle, unbelievably easy to ride and without a hint of of nervousness or instability. Drop the tire pressures and run TKC80's and it is pretty good in the dirt for such a big/heavy bike. But it has an achilles heel in lack of ground clearance that really gets to be a problem in rocks.

I suppose it's possible the the v-twin in the Strom might be a better dirt-bike engine than the parallel-twin in the Versys, but I doubt it. I think engine tuning is the key thing, not whether it's a certain configuration, and both bikes have very similar powerbands, the Strom slightly stronger from top to bottom.

- Mark

 

[Fred W]

The Versys (may?) also have another somewhat disturbing mark against it for prospective dual-sport use -- the parallel-twin engine. This type of engine design often doesn't offer the kind of rear wheel traction that's appreciated off-road. When the going gets rough/loose/slippery, the parallel twin often spins the back tire too easily -- and higher-horsepower verticle twins (w/360 cranks) do that even easier. V-Twins hook-up better and singles are as good as it gets.

Huh? You're going to have to 'splain that one. If all other things were equal, (bore, stroke, fuel and ignition tuning) what on earth would make a V twin better at "hooking up" that a parallel twin? The uneven firing? And why do you think a single is better than a twin cylinder engine of the same displacement, other than weight, simplicity and cost?

 

[charismaticmegafauna]

Okay, I'll give it a try.

The question was:

I wonder how the Versys would work as a DS, with different tires of course?

And I responded with something about the Versys' parallel-twin crank not being ideal. Given the general loose surfaces encountered in off-highway riding, sometimes traction (especially rear-tire grip) can be at a premium. That's where engine design makes a difference. Good traction comes from the 4-stroke single -- a power stroke starts every other revolution 0 -- 720/0 -- 720/0.... A 90 degree v-twin (not counting staggered crankpins) can be 0 -- 90 -- 720/0 -- 90 -- 720/0, kinda like a single with a longer firing pulse; or, 0 -- 450 -- 720/0 -- 450 -- 720/0, a 'staggered', un-even firing. An even-firing parallel twin (360 degree crank) is 0 -- 360 -- 720/0 -- 360 -- 720/0, too even and nice to help the rear tire find 'bite'.

Add to this: a high-performance engine -- once power starts to build, it's easier for the engine to spin the rear tire.

Alternately, bigger engines, whatever configuration, can seem to find traction easier at low rpm using well spaced power pulses.

This condition is actually easy to see on a damp rural un-paved road with something like a 650 single accellerating in top gear. You can actually go back and see the power-pulse 'divots' in the soft road surface. You could, if you wanted to, prove the theory mathematically (using timzez and gozintaz) knowing rpm, over-all gearing, and wheel diameter -- and know (then, measure) the distance between 'divots'. Sound like fun...? :blink:

And, 'markjenn' opined that the short-ish wheel-base of the Versys may work against it, too -- off-highway.

Hope this helps....

 

[RadioHowie]

Okay, I'll give it a try. The question was:

I wonder how the Versys would work as a DS, with different tires of course?

And I responded with something about the Versys' parallel-twin crank not being ideal. Given the general loose surfaces encountered in off-highway riding, sometimes traction (especially rear-tire grip) can be at a premium. That's where engine design makes a difference. Good traction comes from the 4-stroke single -- a power stroke starts every other revolution 0 -- 720/0 -- 720/0.... A 90 degree v-twin (not counting staggered crankpins) can be 0 -- 90 -- 720/0 -- 90 -- 720/0, kinda like a single with a longer firing pulse; or, 0 -- 450 -- 720/0 -- 450 -- 720/0, a 'staggered', un-even firing. An even-firing parallel twin (360 degree crank) is 0 -- 360 -- 720/0 -- 360 -- 720/0, too even and nice to help the rear tire find 'bite'.

Add to this: a high-performance engine -- once power starts to build, it's easier for the engine to spin the rear tire.

Alternately, bigger engines, whatever configuration, can seem to find traction easier at low rpm using well spaced power pulses.

This condition is actually easy to see on a damp rural un-paved road with something like a 650 single accellerating in top gear. You can actually go back and see the power-pulse 'divots' in the soft road surface. You could, if you wanted to, prove the theory mathematically (using timzez and gozintaz) knowing rpm, over-all gearing, and wheel diameter -- and know (then, measure) the distance between 'divots'. Sound like fun...? :blink:

And, 'markjenn' opined that the short-ish wheel-base of the Versys may work against it, too -- off-highway.

Hope this helps....

 

[Fred W]

I'm, not sure what Howie is saying, but I'm still not buying it.

 

[RadioHowie]

I'm, not sure what Howie is saying, but I'm still not buying it.

My graphic representation essentially says "first I got stoopid....then my head 'sploded!"

However, CMF's technobabble can be described with an analogy to ABS...

In slippery conditions, ABS grabs...lets go...grabs...lets go... over and over again, ultimately raising the coefficient of friction when compared to a wheel that's simply locked up.

Applying the same analogy, a rear tire in slippery conditions, such as offroad, will ultimately gain better traction by power being delivered in pulses, which an uneven firing V-Twin provides better than an even firing vertical twin. Think of it as engine-derived traction control. In slippery conditions, like getting a car unstuck from mud or snow, you don't just hammer the throttle and hope for the best, you modulate it for traction, i.e., to gain-lose-gain-lose, etc., until you're moving.

CMF's contention is that a V-twin provides modulated power deliver, while a vertical, parallel twin provides less modulation...and a single would provide the most power modulation.

Of course I could be completely fooked and none of this makes a bit of sense.

 

[markjenn]

The whole idea of "big bang" and that different engine configurations "hook up better" is something that some riders believe in but has never been verified in any scientific way and is the subject of considerably controversy. Keep in mind that there is a lot of stuff between the pistons and the tire contact patch: con-rods that flex, crankshafts that wind and unwind, crankshaft counterweights that absorb and release power, lots of rotational inertia in the primary drive clutch and transmission, a final drive chain, several rubber cushioning devices, a wheel that flexes, and finally the tire itself. Can traction be seriously affected by the micro-second timing of power pulses as they traverse this convoluted sequence? In racing applications where you're keeping the tire at the ragged edge of traction all the time, perhaps, but in everyday riding that most of us do? I doubt it.

Further consider that the whole idea of "big bang" was that it was important to have unevenly spaced firing pulses so that the tire could "recover" after each pulse. Big bang in racing has gone into fashion and out of fashion several times. So some say you want the pulses to come at unequal intervals, others say it is better to have them equal so each one has less chance of breaking traction. Both can't be right.

Parallel twin engines have been used successfully over the years in a number of bikes that have been dirt raced and BMW seems quite pleased to be using one in their new 800GS. Overall, I rate it as a non-issue.

-Mark

 

[Scab]

Of course I could be completely fooked and none of this makes a bit of sense.

That makes perfect sense.

 

[RadioHowie]

Of course I could be completely fooked and none of this makes a bit of sense.

That makes perfect sense.

Glad you agree. Now, bite ME! :fuck: