Jump to content

200 V 250


dabber
 Share

Recommended Posts

As a 200 Sherco rider I have to agree it is the bike which most reduces my score. As I drop most of my marks in the "precision" situations of edging round tight corners the 200 is a distinct advantage over bigger bikes. If I five a four foot step on the 200 I'd be doing the same thing on a 250/270, i.e. it's the rider not the bike that can't do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 
 

I don't agree with the popular argument that the 200 will do everything that the 250/290 will do.

If that were the case, why would they bother making them - not just due to reliance on male bravado to snap up the bigger bikes.

I know that a good rider can make the 200 do a lot, no disputing that, look what the A and B class boys can do on the 125's. I won't bring in the argument of weight - although it's a factor in my case, it's probably not for most riders.

Sometimes it's just horses for courses, but for starters, the 290 can give you the choice of an extra gear, sometimes two. It's nice sometimes to have the power to ride 3rd all the way on a big stream/waterfall.

There are plenty of hills where third gear on a 200 won't pull all the way, but very few on the 290.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against the 200. I think many riders are happy even with the Scorpa 4 banger, so clearly power is not always the priority. Just expressing another opinion.

:wall:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 
 
 
 

Mine maybe isn't a valid argument except for my situation so it's hard for me to comment (and I probably shouldn't have :wall: ).

If you try getting 6'3" 120Kg round the expert route on a 200 you'll see what I mean though :wall: Running out of steam is a fairly regular occurrence, whereas the 290 still feels like a toy, so there seems no point in doing without the power. Although I'd admit that if an incline isn't involved, the smaller bikes feel easier to control, and are probably less work.

If I put myself in the shoes of a more average sized bloke I may be more inclined to agree.

Edited by bikespace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 
Another thing you often find with smaller capacity bikes, is that they feel a lot lighter than larger capacity machines, even though there is not a great difference in the actual weights of the 2 bikes.

why is this then? also is there any weights i can add on or take off to make it more responsive? thanks :wall:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I happen to own both a 1.25(wife''''s) and a 2.9 and many times find myself wanting to ride the 1.25 in club events as it IS fun to ride and it seems to do better if it is a muddy day.

I also believe that the 1.25 makes you ride "smarter" because there is not the excess power to rely on and you must think ahead and ride smarter but it is less fatigueing to ride.

Although my 2.9 is "tuned down" a bit with slower timing, I still prefer it for the "big" sections because of the torque!

I just wish that Sherco made a "true" 200cc bike, as every time that I have ridden a 2.0, it just seems like a 1.25 with only a bit more power, and little more, and does not have the flywheel to carry you over big stuff either.

That is just my opinion for what it is worth, just wish I could get the wife to ride a 2.0 so I could borrow it!

Cheers, :wall:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
  • Create New...