This may be a stupid question - air cooled engines?
 

As i said above this may be a totally stupid question, but with an air cooled engine -

if you sit stationary for long periods of time with the engine running then the engine will gradually just get hotter and hotter as no air is passing by the engine - is this correct?

Will you get more heat given off, as in will you feel more heat coming from the engine as you sit on bike with an air cooled engine vs water cooled?

Thanks for any responses

Air-cooled engine loose heat through the cooling fins.

Yes, they do loose heat better with air passing over them, but I have sat in traffic for what feels like an eternity on several air-cooled bikes and have never had an engine failure, although I could feel the ambient temperature around the engine rising.

You'd have to leave it running for a good while to have problems, IMO.

On a water cooled bike the heat emitted from the einge is abosrb by the coolant. Once the temp reaches a set amount the thermostat will activate the fan to keep the bike from over heating...

On any bike, if it looked like I was going to sit there for a while, I just flicked the kill switch: no point in burning juice to go nowhere...

Thanks for response tho if in future you could make it a bit quicker please! Lol

yes i would switch engine off, just was not sure if i was thinking along the right lines

It is suprising how much heat is generated whilst the bike is 'at idle' whilst stationary, I noticed this one night whilst I was about to leave work in the dark, it was a 1340 Harley and after starting it I realised I had forgotten something and unlocked the shop and went back in for just a couple of minutes, upon returning to the bike, the exhaust pipes were glowing red hot on about 6-8inches out of the cylinder heads,this I had never seen before and never experienced this at either high speeds or over long distances, quite shocked at how the heat had built up in such a short space of time.

SHHHHHUSH! The way motorcycles got the right to split lanes (filter) in California was by claiming our air cooled engines would overheat.

I always turn my engine off if it looks like I'll be waiting for more than a minute or two. I think that in Switzerland it's compulsory to turn off when waiting at traffic lights?

Another point to note: I've heard of some BMW oilheads catching fire or seizing when left idling for long periods. The engine overheats, the oil sight glass drops out & the hot oil spills on to the header pipes. This may have happened to Police bikes (R1150RT?) left idling in emergency situations with their lights on etc.

BMW reccommend that the engine not be run stationary for a long time, I forget the figures, having sold my r80 no longer have the book. but it was either 2 minutes or ten.
as an aside, french BMW r1150's have a thermostat on the oil with a fan cooled oil cooler.

but yes, air cooled bike heat up when stopped.. My Enfield (lean burn) is the hottest bike I have ever come across.

Most air cooled engines have fins which are set at an angle - not completely horizontal. That's because back in the days when air cooling was normal the designers knew the bikes would be stationary sometimes, and so the fins allow convection circulation. (warm air goes up past the fins because they are tilted upwards - go and look at an air-cooled engine and you will see what I mean)

I've only ever had one watercooled bike - keep it simple! When water cooling goes wrong it's a real pain, and on a small petrol engine it's just not necessary...

Tony

Water cooled (WC :innocent: ) has an advantage that you can get more performance out of an engine per cc, compared with air cooled (AC).

But this should not be a major consideration for a touring/adventure bike.

WC add extra weight, extra complication & extra fragility :nono:

AC will be more tolerant to high temps, as a WC engine will boil over... and after all, a WC motor needs AIR to cool it anyhow :rolleyes2:

Although I suppose you can make a quick cuppa a bit easier when you finish you trip with a WC bike :blushing:

Pays yer money & makes yer choice.

No ... as an air cooled engine gets hotter, it will transfer more heat to the surrounding air, as the temperature differential will be greater. The hotter the engine gets, the greater the temperature differential with the stationary air next to it ... and the greater that differential, the more energy in the form of heat will be transferred to that air. Eventually (as the engine gets hotter) the amount of heat being transferred to the air will be equal to the amount of heat being generated by the engine i.e. there will be an equilibrium temperature that if you left the bike idling, it would eventually reach. If the outside air was cold, i.e. it was sitting outside a starbucks in Tromso Norway, in the middle of winter, the equilibrium temp the bike would reach would be lower than if you left it idling in the Sahara in the middle of summer. Thats because the temperature differential between the idling engine and the air is greater at -30 C than at +50 C.

I disagree ... efficiency of an engine impacts on how much fuel to have to carry. That means less range, and more weight. So the efficiency of the engine is a major consideration point for me. An old air cooled, carbed bike which may be more than 30% less efficient than a modern water cooled fuel injected bike will have to carry 6-7 kgs more fuel for the same range.

The water in a cooling system will weigh about 1.5 kgs. As opposed to the 6-7 kgs in extra fuel you carry on an aircooled bike of the same power. Sure the radiator has small amount of weight, but so do the metal cooling fins on an air cooled engine.

Realistically, compare the weight, power and efficiency of the BMW Rotax 800cc engine vs a BMW air cooled 1000 cc boxer engine (the last properly air cooled engines they made) ... its slightly lighter, 40% more powerful, and probably at least 40% more efficient too. The range on a 16 litre F800 would be about the same or more than 24 litres on a airhead boxer. Particularly in challenging conditions when range is critical.

I dont have a fancy radiator guard on my X-challenge yet dont consider it a fragile part of my bike ... Come to think of it, I have not had a radiator or water cooling related problem in nearly 20 years of adventure motorcycling. The air cooled engine thing is a red herring. Its one of the great adventure motorcycling "wives tales" that is just not borne out by reality. I dont recall reading about anyone on the HUBB who needed help because his radiator got holed. Even if there was the odd rare case, fixing a holed radiator is something that you could get done is pretty much any 3rd world village anyway.

If you happen to love old air cooled engines, then by all means use them. I know plenty of boxer enthusiasts whose preference is not to ride anything different because they love the character. Choosing them for character is one thing, or to choose a bike that you like that happens to be air cooled ... great , by all means take an air cooled engine. Nothing wrong with it.

But its ludditeism and just closing eyes to the reality to suggest that old air cooled engines are better than water cooled, fuel injected engines for adventure bike travel.

With a sidecar, traffic and terrain can mean high power at low speeds. We also carry tools, so get to meet the ones that don't make it:(

IMHO the technology doesn't matter, it's the quality of the bike and how well maintained. After a Rotax related walk I avoided watercooled for ten years, but the K100 suits my purposes now. So what overheats:

Bonneville- oil cooled - never

MZ - Aircooled - Never

K100 - water cooled - never

F650 - water cooled - after the load bearing lip seal went and after the fan switch stuck.

Enfield Bullet - Air Cooled - Timing was out.

Ural - Air Cooled - running on one cylinder due to electrical fault.

Ducati- Oil cooled - race clutch in the queue out of a GP meet.

R1150GS - oil cooled - had no oil in it (owner was confused by the concept, Touratech didn't sell him any, was too busy having a temper tantrum to be helped :rolleyes2:).

The F650 is bad design. The Enfield is a combination of old design and inexperienced owner. The Ural is poor quality. The Ducati is the wrong technology. The R1150GS was a stupid owner. If Ural had tried to make a waterpump in 2000 it would probably have been a poor copy of the Rotax POS. Solution: avoid Rotax and Ural. The others were just the wrong bikes with the wrong owners in the wrong place.

I don't think you can say watercooled good/air cooled bad or the other way round, they all work when working and require next to modification in how you ride if designed for road use.

Andy

Water cooling is a fairly modern thing to motorcycles so all those thousands upon thousands of miles covered by air cooled engines in that past answer the post very well . Simplicity is the by-word when touring.

Not to get into the air-cooled vs water cooled debate, I can reply to this question. The answer is: it depends.

The hottest bike I ever owned was a water cooled BMW K100RS. When the cooling fan came on (especially when stopped) it was designed to direct the heat from the engine directly onto the rider, especially the rider's left leg (as I recall). That bike would cook its rider on a hot day. I never experienced that kind of heat with my air cooled BMW airheads (R75/5, R100RS) or my suzuki DR650 (oil and air-cooled.)

At one point, I think Honda tried to address this issue on the water cooled Goldwing by having the cooling fan reverse when stopped- to try to suck the heat off the engine forwards, but I think they gave up quickly on that when their new bikes began overheating.

Some bikes are notoriously hot and others don't seem to be.

...........shu

I just love these generalisations :)

Ahem ! Scot has been using water cooling for its motorcycles since 1926, I guess that makes my Enfield old fashioned :(

Or could it just be that water cooling isn't really that modern ?

As for the temperature differential equalising! just try leaving your water cooled bike idling with the fan disconnected then see if the temperature will equalise between radiator and ambient air.

Water cooling of motors is a performance addition. Its idea is that with the correct sized radiator in a given ambient temperature range it will keep a motor in the "sweet spot" thermally this in turn gives more HP for a longer period of time at a particular level. Some water cooling is tuned more than others. Have you seen the masked off radiators that used in MotoGP, they are trying to keep the motor at a certain temp range.

I am not sure about the theory that the bike temp will reach a balance with the outside air. Its got to do with how heat is generated by the engine internals and surface area to get rid of the heat. You leave an air cooled bike idling in 30c it will cook it's self eventually, because a point will be reached that surface area or the fins cannot radiate the heat quicker than the engine internals generate. Throw in the fact that the oil will also eventually get too hot and loose its ability to both lube and carry heat away..

But all of this bad stuff will take a long time. A long time.

Scott started using water cooling in 1911, not '26. Mind you, they're pretty simple, AFAIK they are pure thermo-syphon with no pump, no thermostat and certainly no cooling fan!

The problem with aircooled engines is that the temperature varies due to variations in ambient temperature and use but more importantly, it varies across the engine. The cylinder head area runs the hottest but is also the most difficult to get the heat away from. In order to deal with these temperature variations some parts of the engine have to be carefully designed to avoid distortion caused by the differential expansion. In a watercooled engine the differential expansion is minimal, components can be made lighter and the engine can run a higher state of tune as heat dissapation is better. You should also get higher efficiency from watercooling as the tune (mixture/timing) can be set for a fixed engine temperature. Depending on the design watercooled engines are the one's more likely to overheat when stationary - especially enduro bikes which have the smallest possible radiator but even bikes with fans sometimes can't cope with high ambiant temperatures.

Aircooled engines should be designed such that they have sufficient fin area so they don't overheat when stationary for an extended period but this will obviosly depend on the ambiant air temperature as rate of heat transfer (which is fixed by fin area) is directly proportional to temperature difference. The crucial thing is if you leave you bike running in 40 degrees it will stabilise at a temperature 20 degrees higher than if the ambiant was 20 and does that 20 degrees extra cause the oil to start evapourating or breaking down - which in turn means oil changes and the correct grade (for the climate) are more important on aircooled bikes.

Simply, your fins are a heat sink.

Heat sink - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


They will still cool the engine while stationary but of course work better with air flow.

If you're engine is air cooled it will be because the engine will be able to take it with no issues. Low compression and low torque/HP engines don't produce enough heat for it to be a problem.

Although, didn't 'Lane Splitting' only become legal in some states of the U.S.A because those fat hogs were overheating in the summer while stuck in traffic ??

Urban legend ?

According to the AMA, lane splitting in California is neither legal nor illegal---there is no law regarding it. Police just let it happen.

Came across this zombie thread while browsing the site and thought I would add my 2p worth.

In my younger days I had a succession of cars (older models, admittedly) and every damn one seemed to have a problem with the water cooling. This made me glad of my a/c bikes and I even went to a/c for my car when I had a number of 2CVs, Dyanes etc. I used to regard water-cooling as the work of the devil.

Having said that, I have had plenty of water-cooled bikes in recent years, and not one has given a problem or even needed topping up between coolant changes. I am now completely confident in the concept, just like I am now happy with EFI. That took a while, too.

And having said that, if I were travelling right out in the sticks, I would probably choose the a/c XT over the w/c FGS, just because if it aint there, it can't go wrong.

:thumbup1:

You occasionally see window stickers on air-cooled VWs boasting of their 'infinite supply of free coolant'.

Having owned a number of VW's from the late-80s/early-90s, when they went over to water cooling, I sometimes think they got a bit stuck on this design philosophy, and didn't bother designing the system to actually keep the coolant in - you just keep pouring it in the top and it leaks out everywhere else.

(despite this I still own a wasserboxer T25)

And that my friend, IMO, is the most important thing when choosing an Overland bike. Simplicity !

Most of the "My bike is better than your bike" droll on here completely disregards this. Probably because the vast majority of hub members haven't quite got around to going anywhere yet, for whatever reason.

When you're half way down the road of bones or the bandit highway, how are you going to fix a leaking radiator or a BMW fuel pump solonoid actuater thingydoofer ? The AA doesn't want to know ;)

Unless you know how to fix these things yourself and have the immediate means to do so, they are just things to add to the 'Things to go wrong and ruin your day/week/month list'

However, I'm not put off by watercooling on bikes. It's very simple and usually very reliable. You have to be pretty unlucky for anything to go wrong. The worst would be a cracked radiator and 'usually' they can be bodged up with Metal repair putty until you can find a welder.

I'm lovin this, you've probably just made a few enemies though,HaHa
By the way my bike is definitely not better than yours

I've owned perhaps 20 different bikes, about half air-cooled, half water-cooled, and never had an issue with any of them overheating. With the air-cooled ones, if I was stuck somewhere in traffic and couldn't move, I'd kill the engine if the engine had to idle more than a few minutes.

I've never seen a problem with liquid-cooling on any of my bikes. Not to say it doesn't happen, but if I were planning a lengthy tour in a remote region, wondering whether I should have a liquid- or air-cooled bike wouldn't really enter into my decsion process on what bike to ride.

The simplest old school bikes I own are the easiest to repair, but also the ones that need repairing and tuning the most often. I carry more spares and more tools on old school bikes than on modern ones.

On my bimmer all I carry is a waterpump kit and a subframe bolt, plus the usual suspects most of us carry (spare brake/clutch lever, fuses, consumeables, chain, etc, etc). Also, I only have to carry a small compact tool kit that doesn't see much use. Besides the regular services, the tool kit is hardly ever used for anything but checking for loose fasteners or taking care of flat tires. In fact, my f650gs has done close to 50.000 kms now and has seen zero brake downs. On my classic Vespa overlanding scooter on the other hand, I have to take half a scooter in spare parts and a huge tool kit... that gets used a lot as the bike seems to allways need something adjusted, serviced or repaired... but it is easy :)


In my opinion, modern (complex) bikes, with all its alloys, electronics, fuel management systems, hydraulics, water cooling, and so on, has over the last decades not only improved bike performance but also bike reliability. There is a reason for all this stuff, and it is not solely to get more power for less fuel and less nasty stuff in the air. Relaibility and less maintenance is also part of progress. And, as many of these "modern components" are in their millionth generation, the reliability of each component has also improved over time.

It is only natural that people get a bit uncomfortable with witch craft and the super natural... like electronics and micro chips. But, even electronics can be carried as spares or shipped in like any other part - much of it can even be mended or bypassed or have a part from a very different vehicle transplanted and adapted... like a water pump. More gadgety stuff may mean more stuff to trouble shoot if things go wrong - sure. But, modern is often more reliable as a whole in the first place, and hence, there will probably be no need to trouble shoot at all.

Sure there are stories of people in big trouble because a micro chip fried and died... but having a steering bearing racer brake, as happened to me in Zambia, is just as bad - some real old school stuff, that can't be mended or sourced anywhere, except through special order from Europe only. Four days searching in close to a hundred shops in the capital Lusaka left me no closer to a solution, my only solution was in the end to have a new part machined and adapted to my bike. If this had happened in a more remote place, even in Europe, I would have had to have the part shipped in, which really isn't a big deal anywhere.

Air Cooled v Water Cooled
 

We've chosen air cooled over water cooled for the following reasons...
If a head gasket fails on a water cooled bike you are stuck usually with water in the oil. This is not good. The latest crop of Enduro bikes do not have the pedigree of either the XT600E or the DR650. Their frames are more flimsy and whilst Walter Colebatch proclaims the X-Challenge (which doesn't appear to be made anymore) is the perfect bike I am bemused by the number of failures/breakages he has had. My XT is doing approx 70mpg. My Ural Cross sidecar outfit, that I rode from Plymouth to cross Mongolia and return last year - unaided, was aircooled and did approx 39mpg even when loaded. The only problem I had with it was a cracked (from new) rear drive unit and the failure of the Slovakian built sidecar sub-frame. Yes the bike could be more energy efficient but at the cost of, in my opinion, simplicity.
I don't want ABS, fuel injection, turbo-charging, electric fuel pumps, or water-cooling.
If my carb blocks - I can repair it
If my headgasket fails - I'll get a bit of oil on my leg (by the way, I can repair it)
If my radiator punctures - Oh! Wait, I haven't got one.

It has been stated that the water cooling only adds 1.5kgs. Hah! Add the weight of this lot..
Radiator. the water in it, hoses and clips, thermostat, radiator fan, thermocouple to trigger the fan, electric fuel pump (which on the KTM adventure 990 takes 2 litres of space in the tank), A temperature sensor (to frighten the crap out of you when your engine overheats), perhaps a temperature guage... That lot weighs a damn sight more than 1.5kgs/3.3lbs.
Nope, I'm not a Luddite, I have all the latest tech at home and I will have GPS, a Netbook, 2 digital cameras, a mobile phone, and an air-cooled XT600 because I don't want to have to fix my water-pump in Siberia/Mongolia or wherever.
By the by, for all you Rotax engined riders out there, remember that the impeller that breaks inside the waterpump doesn't come with the repair kit! My friend Clyde got stuck in Aguinskoi (1 version of possible English spelling) for 21 days whilst BMW in America sent the impeller/s to him by Courier. He already had the repair kit. BMW in Moscow had the part but wouldn't send it as they said it would not get to him. That's why Clyde ordered it from the US of A.
I respect your decision to justify whatever bike you want to take and if it breaks down and I'm there I would happily help you repair it (I'm an Engineer). But don't lie to me about the advantages of taking a modern water-cooled, fuel injected bike.
I thank you
Andy

a/c v w/c
 

By the way, the XT600E has steel, chromed wheel rims. They are without a doubt the easiest rims I've ever changed tyres on, and that's why they're staying on the bike for next years travel - Bikers Abroad - Fools venturing forth on motorbikes

The thing is despite having all the electronic wizardry and water cooling you still have the possibility of a "steering bearing race" breaking.

Adding all the gizmos does not provide a cure for basic engineering faults. I had a big end bearing fail on a recent trip, but was able to continue for another 800 miles to park my bike somewhere safe until I could collect it. Generally electronic failures come without warning and are catastrophic (in that they render the vehicle unrideable) and unrepairable except by part replacement. Fixing my big end cost less than most engine management systems black box. The engine management system in my eyes is the ignition. so to have an ignition fault be more expensive than a crank failure seems ludicrous.

Opinions or lies??
 

Andy,
I was wading through the rather usual , if not tedious (IIRC it's been done to death in the past), a/c V w/c arguments looking for some new angle when I arrived at the part of your post shown above; about an hour later after your posting number 26, I am somewhat surprised that you have not edited out the terminology "don't lie to me".
For clarity, who do you consider is lying in this thread?

Andy, given the number of dishwasher repair men, machine operators and others who claim the title of engineer I’d suggest being more specific. For example in my case I would say I was a graduate manufacturing engineer working in process improvement as a six sigma black belt.

For Walkabout, a different answer:

I worked in the automotive industry for 13 years up to five years ago. My take on this would ignore the usual biker fixation with specific technologies. A Toyota Landcruiser (water cooled) will statistically prove more reliable in a long range travel environment than any bike. Sensible comparison though is close to impossible as comparable numbers just don’t exist. I would start my efforts on this by looking at:
· Intended use. If you exceed the design specification things will start to fail at an increasing rate. From the consumers point of view it is difficult to spot bikes actually designed for this type of use. Small capacity MX type machines are designed to race, so short , high power runs followed by any required maintenance, not carrying a lot of kit for a long distance. Larger machines may have off road style but are honestly expected to be used on sunny weekends and the odd two week holiday. Old machines may have had an expected design life that is now over, or the designer may have been useless and spent a fortune providing 40 year life parts for a 7 year life design.

· Design aspects that potentially detract from our requirement (electronic security systems etc.) I would say should count against a product. We need a cooling system though.

· Stability of design. Engineers, regardless of robust processes and taking the first point into account cannot find every issue until the product is used. Any new bike will have some sort of issue and the customers will find it. How this is dealt with varies with company culture, size and processes.

· Age of design and materials. We no longer see the sorts of obvious leaps and bounds they had in mechanical and electrical products even 30 years ago. What is changing rapidly is manufacturing techniques and materials. New designs can be more ambitious and without failures in their intended use because a component that used to be injection moulded and at risk of melting is now sintered ceramic. Things like 3D printing are going to allow shapes of component that were production impossibilities on older designs. These will be more robust and have higher performance.

· Where the design spec is met by sealed for life items, removing maintenance access is perfectly logical. Where this is not met, good design should make maintenance easy. Only where there are process failures will a semi-sealed design fail and require access.

· Robust process. The Japanese are the worlds best manufacturers. They have had detailed, naturally stable processes for almost every aspect of production for 60 years. A boutique manufacturer using non-automotive suppliers in small numbers cannot have the sort of process that simply does not make mistakes at any significant level. The root cause of the Ural subframe failure will almost certainly be related to a small production workshop relying on worker skill and inspection. Ural cannot insist the welding is done on a computer controlled process with statistical controls in place, the numbers are too small. Other manufacturers have adopted the Japanese techniques and some adapted them to other cultures but less experience still has an effect.


I therefore see no real argument in favour of either cooling system. A well executed water cooling system is more efficient. The well executed requirement is more likely to be a modern but proven design by a Japanese manufacturer or large manufacturer using Japanese techniques. Where the well executed design, working to an overland specification does not exist, air cooling can be meet many aspects of the requirement albeit at lower performance.


Basically, let someone with more money than sense do the testing on something fairly modern from a large manufacturer with a good reputation and don’t worry about what’s inside. Know how to fix what can be fixed and have the right tools , it isn't rocket science regardless.

Andy

By your own admission, 13 years in the automotive industry could mean that sat behind a desk in Halfords.

Be more specific.... I'm just saying :Beach:

Jokes aside, I am interested in your experience. I've read a lot of your posts and they make a lot of bloody sense. To me anyway. bier

My cover is blown! Would anyone like to buy three hundred sets of 5 year old spark plugs in their original packaging?

:rofl:

And thank you for the kind words. bier

Andy

The trouble with production adventure bikes is they don't build them to go on adventures. The radiators are never protected properly ( neither are the oil filters/coolers ) Look at the radiator on a modern mx bike they never get damaged, I crashed, bashed, trashed my cr250 the radiator still looked brand new when the bike was ten years old.
The new Yam tenere 1200 has a plasticky engine guard thingy, they shaped it to go around the oil filter which is sat directly behind the front wheel forchrissakes!!
I've got a GS 1200 adv it's great for what I do but Bmw say don't fit an oil cooler guard cos it'll over heat the oil (I know everyone does) but by it's monicker it's an adventure bike so w.t.f don't they fit a bigger one with a guard on to start with.:taz:

My Previous Rant
 

My apologies to you all. I get fed up with the continuous waffle that the latest bike has to be the best bike. To that end I claimed that someone on this thread was telling porkies. It was more of a misdirection than a lie and for that I apologise.
I started in the motor trade, as a mechanic working on Toyotas, in 1970 and have moved on to do engineering work for the MoD and others. I'm 60 years old and I like to hear both sides of the arguement.
I'll leave air-cooled versus water cooled debate to the people that want to read this thread. However, may I point out that when the legislation changed, so that cars had to have catalytic converters on, it was a retrograde step. The 'lean burn' engine was being developed and this would have given far greater benefits, and more quickly, than the step to cats! It would have been infinitely more ecologically sound as well. Check out what cats are made of and how easy they are to recycle?
To this end I've chosen simple engineering, zero content of water cooling, ABS, and fuel injection. The bike I've chosen, to go around the World, is 9 years old (2003) with a much longer pedigree than anything built now. The reason why it isn't built now? Our Draconian emission regulations! The Suzuki DR650 is still sold in Canada and America yet hasn't been sold here since the later part of the 1990s. Our emission regs yet again.
I've owned 3 KTMs from new, a 950 Adventure (one of the best bike's I've ridden), an RC8 and a 990SMT. I own a Valkyrie, a Fazer 1000 (Yes, it's carbed), and a TTR250 as well as my ATW steed - a Yamaha XT600E.
I've done the Northern route through Mongolia on an air-cooled Ural 750 sidecar outfit and I never wanted more power or more complexity.
As I stated before, You make the decision based on your experience, or the experiences of your friends, and your understanding of where you're going to ride. Air-cooled or water cooled? Your choice, but I'd help anyone out, irrespective of what bike they ride, if they broke down near me.

That sure was a pretty bizarre rant ...
 

Firstly, I never proclaimed it to be the perfect bike. I am a very rational man. Any one making a claim like that would have rocks in their head. Anyone quoting me as saying that would be trying to score cheap points and ignoring facts. Propaganda is a lovely thing if it helps you sell your story right?

I often said while I bemoan the lack of a perfect adventure bike out there, the XC is the best base I have found for modifying a bike for long distance, off-road, adventure travel. Thats rather different from saying "The X-Challenge is the perfect bike" ... isnt it???

Secondly, if you are bemused by the relatively small number of fixes I have made to my bike over the large amount of kilometres I have done then you clearly know nothing about the way I ride. If you rode your bike [edit: know now a DR650] as fast I do, as brutally as I do, over as long a period as I do, then you wouldnt be bemused. Your bemusement stems from ignorance - its that simple really.

Doing what? Asphalt motorway cruising. I have ridden alongside XTs, and while their fuel consumption is 5-10 % worse than a rotax poweed bike on the asphalt, its a good 25% worse on any kind of road which could be termed an "Adventure". Certainly all my comments relate to bikes that are intended to be ridden off road. What does your XT do in Mongolia? Do you know?

Lovely story ... take one example and therefore you know the reliability of the entire production line. Very scientific approach.

Why dont you tell me what bike you bought, and lets see if I cant find an example in the annuls of history where your model has left the owner in a pickle. Using your brilliant strategy we will soon be able to say that every machine ever made is utterly useless.



As was said earlier ... Which means what, exactly???

If you are going to try and gain credibility by throwing in a cheesy line like that, then do us all the favour of telling us what engineering degree you have. Do you have a mechanical engineering degree and use it daily in the design of production combustion engines ??? (I am sure the good folk at Rotax do)

If you are going to go around telling people who have been doing this for decades that passing on their experience for the benefit of others is lying to you, then you are going to cop a lot of flack ...

:funmeteryes:

A handsome apology, well delivered. :thumbup1:

Yes, we can all become frustrated with waffle.
However, there is some very good input to the discussion herein, including the latest posts from Colebatch.
And ThreewheelBonnie always has some good insight into the motor industry in general and his experiences with manufacturing and materials technology.

For what it is worth, I have one of each in my garage, a/c and w/c, 1995 and 2010 respectively - just one case of how over 15 years the technology has moved along, no matter for what reasons (as are discussed herein).

+1
 

Me too!

& the Scott trial continues to this day!
Scott Trial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indeed, on this very day.
http://www.richmondmotorclub.com/wp-...oute-Guide.pdf

There is a side of me which resists moving with the times but I also now have complete confidence in watercooling and EFI, it does take time, but the newer generations of 'gizmos' such as canbus and ring antennas still scare the life out of me. It seems though that none of these actually enhance the bikes performance but just add another layer of things that can go wrong which will stop you going where you want to go.

Choosing the ideal bike for an adventure overland trip is very much a personal thing. Colebatch, by his own admission, gives his bike a hard time and expects the bike to cope. The hard terrain means that light weight is an important factor as is good suspension. I've only ridden an standard X challenge a few times and I've also ridden a DR650 and one is not in the same league in terms of trail riding ability.

I've always travelled with a view to getting to the destination with the fewest problems possible. I wouldn't go as far as to change the route to be easier on the bike (the opposite is true on our Africa trip) but I would (and did) resist playing dakar racers in the Namibian sand dunes, for example.

Amongst others, I have the old R100GS and a KTM 690. The KTM is used almost exclusively for trail riding but could be adapted to serve as an adventure overland bike and would be well up to a 'Colebatch' type of trip, however, for my style of travelling it'll be the GS everytime. The fact that I know pretty much every nut and bolt and how to balance the carbs with my eyes shut all add to its virtues. But I'm sure I'd only last the first day like the guy on the DR650 did.

Watercooling is 'newfangled' ?
 

What's next - electronic ignitions, fuel-injection (non open loop), wet clutches, forks with shim stacks vs a damper rod, linkage suspensions instead of two shocks on each side of the sub-frame, disc brakes, etc ?

I'm astonished at the idea that somehow more complexity is less reliable. Perhaps NASA should return to analog computers, the same as were used to get Armstrong to and back from the moon ?

No doubt, when something "modern" (I prefer "current") goes wrong . . . it's rarely a simple fix. If an ECU fails in the middle of nowhere - you're done. If a fuel injector is clogged - same. Do I pine for ignition points and beveling the distributor profiles for advancing my spark ? Nope. Do I like the idea of riding a damper fork fast across the steppe instead of a rumbling along smiling on my KTM 950 @ 140KPH. Nope.

For one, the endless maintenance of the "simple" bikes is either too much or it's unpleasant. (Check and set the valves on an old threaded adjuster . . . every 3000km.) Or just pull the rear shock on a DRZ - it's a two-man job with a bit of cursing for 45 min. It's an afterthought on a modern bike. (Yeah, I consider DRZ's on the cusp of "modern" and not.)

(FWIW, the GSs and Tenere's miss the mark primarily due to their pachyderm weight and/or high CoG. But they're both wonderful on bad (tarmac) roads and fantastic on good ones.)

What about the FUN of a modern bike ? (Yes, I believe old bikes can be fun, too.) A DRZ is as reliable as the sun, once you take care of a few details. But it's about as much fun as soggy Weetabix, thank you. It feels more ponderous than my KTM 950 ever does in a rock garden and the engine inspires dreaming of being on another bike. The big Katoom is a shockingly good all-rounder and except for it's looks . . . a great bike. (I have a carbureted version that was chosen because I didn't care for KTMs open-loop FI even though I REALLY like FI, generally.) One thing against the modernity - you can talk yourself into thinking you're better than the bike on a DRZ . . . not on a modern bike. An old Trumpet is "fun" but you're never as good as a modern 600.

Hell, if you really want reliable - get a bactrian camel and a good pair of shoes. At least the "ride" will be about the road and not the "vehicle".

In Beyneu last year I watched a Lada's head come off and the head gasket sealer sanded off by hand. Then air was blown to clear off the abrasive and in and down the oil AND water jacket holes. Amazing. The cams were covered in fine dust . . . given a wipe and put back in. EVERYBODY told me how great the Lada's were 'cause ANYONE could work on them. And in my experience, just like a 60's US car . . . everyone always WAS working on them.

My preferences are fun, reliability (which is overly worried about IMHO), and trying to make a nice adventure ride about the path, not the bike.

Know your bike, whatever it is - be able to do at least basic maintenance and recognize symptoms of problems and know yourself. If you're better with a wrench and diagnosis, you have the option to choose something more engaging. Afterall, it's a holiday, not a job ! If not, stay safe - a DRZ vs a TTR (water vs air cooled) - for me, slam dunk. The DRZ everytime. Better suspension, better resistance to varying weather, altitude, gas quality and economy BECAUSE it's water cooled.

The weakest link is the fool holding the handlebars . . . whatever the bike.

A fool for fun.

Choosing to travel by bike means that the bike is an important part of the trip. I agree that it shouldn't dominate the trip and it should be fun to ride.

I've never had to put my bike on a truck to get to the next town and this is something I would hope I never have to do so it needs to be well prepared, inherently reliable but easy to fix at the roadside - doesn't mean it's not fun!

What a lot of tedious bullshit posturing !

A good mechanic will equip him/herself with the knowledge , spares and tools to maintain his/her motorcycle regardless of the technology involved .
A guy/gal who does not have the ability or interest will always depend on others and his/her credit card .

The standard of maintenance by the operator will dictate the reliability of the machine , not the simple fact of air cooled vs water cooled or carburretor vs fuel injection .

Fatuous comparisons prove nothing .

Vintage machines can travel around the world with very little trouble , conversely it is not unknown for travellers to be stranded for weeks when a mono shock , or similar part , on a modern bike breaks and a spare has to be flown in .
C'est la vie .
Make your choice , you are sure to be correct .:mchappy:

Make mine watercooled, FI'd with modern suspension, please
 

A good mechanic can do nothing about a blown monoshock (or any other !), a clogged injector, a fried ECU.

Modern (watercooled, due to power output AND emissions requirements) bikes have higher levels of performance in terms of power, economy, emissions and tolerance to environmental factors.

The downside of those features is that technology is required to obtain that wondrous mix. If that technology fails - which is VERY rare - game's over.

I'm with that mix, not something I can and likely will tinker with constantly on what is a ride, not a rolling motorbike maintenance clinic.

Ed Culbertson had his old boxer disassembled into pieces to go into dugout canoes to pass through, not go around the Darien Gap . . . 30 years ago. Would he do it with the boxer now ? I doubt it. Not if it was about the ride, not the bike.

To each his own.

Agreed

But has to consider if they should go to the remoter places for fear of suffering a breakdown they can't fix and potentially being stranded. For me the ideal would be to be able to make a 'get you home' repair in every situation.

Agreed it has little to do with the type of technology but it's not always the operator who is to blame for poor reliability especially if the bike is new.

There is noway you can carry tools and parts for every eventuality.

If you have less things to fix, then you need less tools, less parts and you'll probably have less breakdowns. It's so mind numbingly obvious I can't believe people are still arguing about it.

Eg. If you get a batch of dirty fuel on an XT600, you simply clean out the fuel filter or change it for another £2 spare that almost ANYONE sells.

Do the same on more modern FI, electronic bike and you're getting far more involved. The fuel pump and filter will most likely be inside the tank leaving most people scratching their heads. That's even if you have the tools and gaskets to pull it all apart and reassemble it.

That's just one example. Of many...

I've been working on bikes my entire adult life and I feel capable of fixing most things. But do I want to be f**cking about with a multimetre and a laptop in in the middle of the road with the sun melting my face while the local kids of trying to nick your tool kit ??? NOPE !!

I want to be able to see and access my bike simply and easily and get on my way.

At home, I run a fuel injected electronic bike. If it goes tit's up, i'll call the AA, get it home and fix it at my leisure.

Given that 90% of things that stop you going are easily repaired using basic generic parts (spark plugs, chain links, bits of wire and insulating tape, silver seal etc.) and a large percentage of these simple failures can be fixed with a leatherman then I think it's possible to carry enough stuff to cover virtually every eventuality. Of course, rare failures (on modern bikes) like engine bearings or gearbox failure cannot be predicted nor can electronic failures but if you're really determined it's easy enough to carry replacement parts for the essential electrical/electronic parts (ECU, coil).

I agree that the less there is to fix, the less there is to go wrong. I think the secret to a reliable bike is to replace all the consummable parts before you leave (including the clutch, cables, brake pads and chain/sprockets (if appllicable)) and a major service interval of 2500 to 3000 miles and this should eliminate failures due to poor maintenance - most of the rest is down to luck.

Bikes that need fresh oil every 15 hours aren't really suitable for travelling IMHO