So just done the first oil change on my Vert 300 Ice Hell, got the recommended Castrol trans max z, which to my surprise is not red. So my question is what does the vert come with initially, as it doesnt seem to be Castrol; unless Castrol has changed the colour?
Efi at the low revs which us clubman ride is the difficulty which has not been completely solved, hence why trs and gg and beta sherco all persist with carbs?
What hasn't been solved exactly?
The Vertigo's I tested and the new Ice Hell I purchased, run extremely well at low revs. In fact I would argue that due to the EFI and the accurate levels of fuels usage when compared to throttle position/gear etc, that EFI at lower revs runs much cleaner/smoother; for me it certainly does in comparison to the 2016 Evo factory I traded in.
I quite like the tether once I got use to it, saved the bike on a few occasions! I will definitely be fitting one to the new bike, but prefer the elastic Jitsie style lanyard.
I started when I was about 14, riding almost every weekend (sometime both days), back then I had a bit of land I could practise so spent a lot of time on the bike; continued riding until I was about 21. However funds were limited, so bike and gear was limited; however made it up to non expert and came close to the SW title a couple of times
Had a break for about 17 years and started again April last year, started as riding in between my other hobby (clay shooting); once or twice a month with some practise. However got the bug again and doing more and more, back up to most weekends, however done a couple of days back to back and finding bike fitness an issue. But currently back up to sportsman in the SW championship and clubman for most other club events, but finding the SW sections at clubman level tend to require more hopping which I'm having to work harder at this days!
This time around I know that expert or even clubman expert (for anything above a grade c trial) is out of my reach, but reckon 3/4 years a younger person could make it!
Last post not aimed at you Sniper although it does contain remarks made by yourself, the thing that interests me is that having read that ratios of 100:1 were being used in bikes as far back as the late 90's in trials bikes that used open crank bearings and with these new very low amounts of oil in the mix are people putting too much oil in their engines because back in the old days that's what everyone did and so if it was great then its just as great now.....One should bear in mind; not of course that these excess oils are being put out into the air that we and childeren breathe[who cares about that] but the amount of money people are wasting by over oiling. So if any one has got any technical insight I am interested even if no one else is.
Agreed, I heard that yesterday whilst discussing this topic; that some older gassers used ratios of 100:1 to no ill effect?
But totally agree with you on excessive oils being spewed out, especially if not needed (some smokey pre65's make me wonder whilst I choke on their fumes)!
I had a response from Vertigo, whilst no real technical detail; they say its due to the fuel injection! But I'm also interested in hearing a more technical insight, if anyone has one!
So if the same 2T oil [lets use what vertigo recommends] were to be used in...........
1.An engine that has the fuel oil mix metered to provide exactly the correct amount required for a better burn and consumption/emissions etc can run in an engine that only needs to lubricate the cylinder/piston/rings at 200:1
2.An engine that has the fuel metered by a carburettor that is set up correctly[and will probably be more inclined to provide a little too much fuel and therefore lubricant] in an engine that only needs to lubricate the cylinder/piston/rings at 80:1....These are later bikes as I described earlier GasGas pro gearbox oil lubes bearings,OSSA TRi sealed bearings,Sherco ST sealed bearings Jotagas sealed bearings [sealed bearings have their lubricant in them and do not rely on the fuel oil mix for their lubrication although there will be an effect of cooling from the incoming charge.
Given that the same oil is used and therefore has the same lubricity and stability under very similar conditions as I would imagine that the Vertigo engine operates under fairly similar heat range as other 2t trials engines,and we only need to lubricate the same surfaces within the engines.....What is the contributing factor that makes it possible to run number 1 engine at a ratio of 200:1 as compared to model 2.that runs at 80:1?
Does the Vertigo use ceramic aerospace coatings on piston or have Krypton piston rings or is the difference not x hatch hone but x hatch grooves in the surface of the cylinder holding more oil to the cylinder wall .......any one got the answers?
Or is it just that the oil is well on top of its job and can stop surfaces within the engine touching each other under the conditions which the engine operates.....Which takes me back to if the Vertigo can get away with 200:1 then surely 80:1 will be plenty in one of the later other makes so why use more to which the reply was other [later] bikes need their bearings lubed .....which they don't as they are either sealed or lubricated by the gearbox oil with possibly the Beta being the exception.....TRS?
Is it ok to run our later bikes at 120:1 and help to save your childerens futures or more importantly some of my money or is 80:1 the minimum amount of oil we can get away with.........Is a minimum of 80:1 just an alternative fact tweeted by Donald Trump.
I haven't suggested for one minute that i know the answers, I was merely suggesting fuel injection and/or engine design; in fact I have emailed Vertigo to try and find out. I still believe the more effective and accurate metering of fuel relating to the actual load on the engine plays a significant part in that ratio. The fact that it can provide more fuel when in the top 2 gears compared to 1-4, because it knows that those are the 'road' going gears and the engine is under more load; says a lot! But there must be some reason why they suggest that ratio, I really cant imagine they have said fcuk it lets suggest a ratio so all our customer seize there engines, can you? Seeing that there are vertigo owners running 200:1 for a year or more would suggest your comment regarding the 120:1 is probably more accurate. In fact just looking around at a trial yesterday, the amount of seriously smoking exhausts after a decent blast between sections (mine included) would also back this up.
But are you brave enough to go away from 80:1 which is already against the manufacturers 'guidelines' (certainly for Beta), to say 100/120:1; just in case something goes wrong? And why would a manufacturer of a carb model suggest a more accurate fuel mixture tolerance, when the carbs can be so easily 'adjusted' to run lean; and risk a load of seizures damaging there reputations? At least Vertigo can be fairly sure the mappings wont be tampered with!
Are you talking about a normal 2t like a GasGas pro....or the OSSA TRi ? maybe the SHERCO ST and JOTAGAS with totally sealed mains that contain the lubricant etc ?.You better have a word with all the thousands of people out there running 80:1 in bikes that have their bearings lubricated by the fuel/oil mix...I think it has more to do with the properties of the oil used than the amount you use.They used to run works bikes at 100:1 back in the late 90's from what I have read and they did not have mains run off the gearbox oil at that time.If they thought it was a problem I do not think that they would have used that ratio on the World stage for all to see their DNF's due to engine failure.
More main bearing failures will come from bikes being stored for long periods of time where they are subject to condensation causing rust formation on the balls and races and then pitting or lack of care/maintenance of air filtration before the said lubricant reaches the bearings than a mixture of 80:1 which is sufficient using todays 2t oils.
I used to run my old GasGas jt jtx txt's at 80:1 without problems.
Here is one......... using ATF in a trials gearbox. Should be a no go high pathetically[that's not a spelling mistake]
plenty of people have used it for years in trials gearboxes with no problems myself included.
I was just trying to make the point that with the older/existing bikes 80:1 is fine, that's what I run currently; never had the desire to use less. But if Vertigo recommend 200:1, I guess the design including the fuel injection etc allows for this! I have also used ATF and seen no problems.
19 hours ago, oni nou said:
They have to warranty the bike for a short time so they would advocate the use of more oil as a belt and braces approach.
And how is Vertigo any different? My point here was most manufacturers suggest more than most of us actually run, so if they suggest 200:1 that's erring on the side of caution; don't imagine they want seized engines!
BTW, some of the newer owners may discover that the plug soots up (even on 25ml) after a few hours.
The BPMR6A is a little too cool for them, a BPMR4A has a little more of the tip protruding, runs a little hot and so far seems to work better.
I 'think' the 4 is the plug coming the newer ones are coming with (maybe UK?), at least that is what Nick said on Saturday! I asked specifically because i had to run a slightly hotter plug in my evo.
And it also shows that if the Vertigo happily runs at 200:1 what a waste of oil/money it is running any of the later model watercooled bikes at more [oil] than 80:1.
No not at all, it's because the Vertigo is fuel injection, the main bearings are lubricated by the gearbox oil; whereas a normal two stroke they are lubricated by the mixture!
It would be cool if the resellers and the manufacturer could publish some agreed upon numbers...
To be fair the Beta manuals 'recommend' a much higher ratio than anyone actually run or I believe the Lampkin recommend, so this seems pretty standard!
Well had my test day today at Birdlip quarry, Gloucester.
Now I had already put money down on a new Ice Hell 300, but thought it best to try, seeing that I hadn't even seen one! I am coming off a 2016 Beta Factory 300.
On arrival, Nick was very accommodating and even though I was early he got me straight on the bike after a quick chat about the features. Both bikes were 2017 models without the battery, all new ones will be battery less; but I believe existing bikes can be modified! The camo was a 300 and the ice hell was 250, seeing that I was planning to purchase a 300, he sent me out on that first. A single kick and it fired into life, it sounded awesome in the flesh; extremely clean revving, as you would expect from FI! Within a few moments of riding I was surprised how it felt, very stable and smooth, so easy to ride! I was impressed with some of the features build into the bike, simple things like the brake level being well protected, yet having a longer pad so riding with foot further out on peg I could still reach the brake without turning foot in?
After a while Nick suggested I change the mapping and switched to map 3 the softest setting and to my amazement, the difference was immense, a very noticeable difference in total contrast to the 'mapping' switch on the evo! I could see that map being very useful in some of the slippery, twisty routes here in the SW! Also played with the full fat mapping and that was eye opening, however could not see me using it that much!
Then jumped onto the Ice Hell 250, this took a couple of kicks; but once given a little throttle, it burst into life. I immediately noticed in the standard map, a softness when compared to the 300, it was very easy to ride! However I felt that the softer maps would be of little use and didn't really try the full fat mapping on this version.
On reflection it is a little unfair to compare the 250 and the 300 in these forms, because the new Ice Hell has a slightly different gearing (10/42) to the camo; so whilst it seemed a massive difference between the two some of that would have been the gearing!
So this left me with a decision, but have ultimately stuck with my choice of the 300; as I felt that it can be tamed for the mud, but could be unleashed when needed. But the Ice Hell was definitely the right choice for me, seeing the extras including the renthal bars and grips, plus the TI bling!
Now just have to wait for the next shipment to arrive, currently about 3 weeks!
The usual fork guards that fit everything else will work for the Vertigo. The only other thing I've seen people run is an exhaust pipe guard (which may be a cut down version from another bike, not sure), but that's more to save your pants than the bike.
Yeah I thought that would be the case about the fork guards! I have seen an Vertigo on eBay where the owner mentions a justice exhaust guard, but had been removed on the pictures; may have to send a question!
I'm seriously considering purchasing a 2017 Ice hell and was wondering if any else out there bothers with any kind of plastic/CF protection parts? With it being so new there isn't much out there, I have seem some carbon fibre cover protection on the Vertigo site but they are some serious money!
I currently have a 2016 Beta Evo factory and from the very first day I had frame/fork/swing arm/cover protection as well as rim tape etc. I appreciate it takes a little away from the aesthetics of the bike, but in several places it has saved significant damage, especially on the forks and clutch cover!
How are people frames/engine cover standing up to boot wear as well?
I may well be over protective or particularly clumsy, not sure.....
Chris Found the Rear to be a bit "Dead" and the grip wasn't where he wanted it to be. He adjusted the Reiger taking some of the damping out and tightened the spring up. It's where he likes it now. I think you still have to look at other bikes to make sure which is best for you. Chris would like to try a 17 Gasser to compare. But his favoured option would be the Ice Hell just for the Shock.
Thanks for the response!
That's good to here, I always like to be able to adjust the suspension!
Yeah, I kind of agree; but the gas gas just doesn't do anything for me. I could be tempted by the Sherco Factory, but again nothing ground breaking, but probably better suspension! I hope that Beta finally start investing some money, as I feel they are becoming a little stale!
Hi all, been lurking for a while; but decided to become a little more active.
Returned to trials about 8 months ago after break of about 17 years!
Currently riding Sportsman/Clubman levels in the South West Centre. The current stead is a 2016 Beta Evo Factory 300, however looking at Vertigos as we speak!
May see some of you at the first SW Champ round on Sunday!
It's probably unwise to recommend anything in this context, bike preference is subjective, however I understand your reasoning behind the question.
First up I would say I have owned a Factory Beta and Gas Gas recently, both superb bikes!
Whether or not an Ice model would suit you more than your Beta is something I cant answer honestly but I can tell you why I decided on a vertigo. Most bikes are much the same but the Vertigo to me has unique features - and therefore performance - which, IMO sets it apart from others currently.
The fuel injected engine is the sharp, high revving but unbelievably tractable. I've not ridden any other brand that can quite match it. I agree with telecat from earlier in the post when he said the latest mapping appears to has lost some of the 'zip.' The 16 model appeared more lively on the throttle than the latest one but still very good. The mapping is not a gimmick, I usually run the default setting but have tried the richest setting on the hill in wet / muddy conditions and there is a tangible amount of extra grip available which I consider an aid to my riding.
Another intrinsic feature of the bike is the low centre of gravity Vertigo champion as part of the sales pitch, it is notably easier to balance (relatively speaking) than any other bike I've had. Practising in the same area over the years takes me to places where I perform the same floating turns etc and I can say with confidence the V is again the most stable predictable chassis / geometry I've tried to date. The gearing appears too close initially but the more you ride the more you appreciate the benefits.
Whether or not you pay the extra for the ice over the camo again is personal but I think the three way adjustable rieger available on the ice trumps the previous set up. The extra weight saving from the titanium pipe and magnesium cases etc probably don't make much difference as I'm limited as a rider. Add to this the clever design and obvious build quality and it's got to be a front runner for anybody who is buying with there own money and wants some engineering advantages over the multi bike spectrum of different brands. In saying that the technology brings it's own caveats and I would happily return to a Factory Beta or Gasser tomorrow, both fantastic bikes but Dougie Lampkin is no mug and he has gone the extra mile whie putting this together and from my perspective as a buyer it shows. In closing I have also had a quick go on a TRS and it was really nice as well, Steve Saunders seems a very decent bloke and I hope he is successful with the TRS! As the old saying goes 'it's horses for courses'. Hope this helps make your decision easier, good luck!
Wow, thanks for taking the time for a detailed response!
TBH I have only ever owned Beta's and my first choice after a break of 17 years, was a nearly new Beta evo; then after a few months once I decided trials was where I wanted to be (motox/enduro was tempting), the beta factory was an obvious choice. However even at that point the Vertigo with the fuel injection etc was almost a winner, but the bike's newness and rumours of a few problems (some issues not on the forums) was enough to put me off, however another year on and further refinements has me thinking again!
Regarding the camo vs ice hell, I had came to the same conclusion but wanted to see what other people had concluded. I'm a slightly heavier rider, so on my Beta I have put a heavier spring in the front and adjusted on the rear (Steve Saunders actually made the changes after some time spent with him), so the lack of adjustment on the rear of the camo concerned me!
Totally agree that Steve S is a decent bloke who was extremely helpful and hopefully I can have a training session with him at some point this year. However the TRS doesn't really have the appeal to move away from the Beta, whilst I haven't ridden one to me the tech is much the same; nothing ground breaking unlike how I see the Vertigo!
I had a 2016 combat and now own a 2017 ice model. The initial mapping on the early 16 models did need amended but that didn't appear to be the only teething problem. The 17 model is very well mapped indeed, pleased with mine and apparently the other little anomalies have been rectified, time will tell. Great bike, no question but nothing without reliability.
Would you say the ice hell is worth the extra money, specifically the 2017 version? Seriously considering swapping my 2016 evo factory 300 for one!
Trans oil?
in Vertigo
Posted
So just done the first oil change on my Vert 300 Ice Hell, got the recommended Castrol trans max z, which to my surprise is not red. So my question is what does the vert come with initially, as it doesnt seem to be Castrol; unless Castrol has changed the colour?