The Motorbike Archives

With all due respect to Roger D., however, we've heard claims like this before and, more often than not, found them to be heavy on exaggeration and light on fact. And although these particular Suzuki boasts probably are truer than most, they aren't exactly front-page news. Just about every motorcycle company has production motocrossers these days which are the same as or not much different from its works bikes. So, advertising considerations aside, what's important to the average rider is not how well these rethought RMs perform in relation to the factory bikes, but how good they are compared to what they'll have to race against—the near-works production machines sold by other companies.

To answer that question, or at least some part of it, Cycle Guide staged a head-to-head shootout matching one of those new Suzukis, the RM250N, against Honda's latest. CR250R. We opted for a two-bike comparison to keep matters un-complicated, and we singled out the Honda as the "other" bike because it was last year's most highly acclaimed 250 before receiving over 40 individual improvements for '79. So it seemed logical to us, although we have not yet tested all the new 250s, that if the RM had any pretensions about becoming King of the 250 Hill, it would have to climb over the Honda Red Rocket to get there.

It didn't take us long to figure out that we had opened a real can of dirt-slinging worms. Because even though both bikes are products of a country notorious for building motorcycles that have different brand names but somehow seem alike, and although many of their critical dimensions are practically identical, these two bikes feel and run and handle as though made on different planets.

The Honda comes off as the archetypal American fast-track racer—good handling, firm suspension, flashy looks, and an oversquare motor that'll knock your Sunday-afternoon socks off. The Suzuki, on the other hand, seems as though its "Made in Japan" sticker got there by mistake, as if someone had jacked up its yellow plastic and ridden some sort of Husqvarna clone under it. So many things about the RM—its soft, lightly preloaded suspension, its seating position, its handlebar arrangement, its steering behavior, its power delivery—all seem more European than Japanese in general, and more Husqvarna than Suzuki in particular.

Our first on-track experiences quickly convinced us that the Honda was the hands-down cubic-horsepower champ. Last year's CR already was one of the strongest sprinters in the 250 class, and a few small engine refinements have honed its power delivery to an even finer edge. Slightly longer intake timing is the main power-boosting ingredient, along with improved scavenging provided by the insertion of a horizontal bridge between the intake port window and the booster transfer port just above it. All this is augmented by thinner petals on the CR's six-segment reed-valve block for easier opening and less resistance to the incoming mixture flow.

Those minor engine changes are sufficient to let the CR run away from the RM—and most anything else in the 250 class—any time traction is half-decent and the throttles can be thwacked wide open. Gear for gear, rpm for rpm, the Honda vaults out of corners harder than the Suzuki, scratches up hills more energetically and flies down straights faster. The CR doesn't have that much more horsepower than the Suzuki, nor is its powerband any wider. But anywhere in that powerband the Honda generates a flatter, stronger torque curve.

Those acceleration specifics may have you believing that the Suzuki is burdened with a feeble engine, but that's not the case. The snottier and gnarlier the track conditions become, the more confidently the RM flashes its European-borrowed credentials. The undersquare engine offers a soft power delivery with no sign of peakiness anywhere in its broad torque

curve. And when traction is less than mediocre, the RM can either stay with the CR or often run past it. The Suzuki's Old World-style power both hooks up more readily and is easier for the rider to regulate accurately in gooey mud, deep sand, loose rocks and on off-camber turns. The Honda's snappy patter is more likely to turn any rider overenthusiasm in these situations into tail-wagging wheelspin.

The RM's superb tractability results from Suzuki's desire to get as wide a powerband as possible while maintaining last year's peak-power level. To that end, the engine's entire top end was reworked. A very significant additional change was the enlargement of the case-reed cavity to allow insertion of three long fiber petals in the reed block instead of the previous two shorter steel blades. This modification alone improved the intake flow enough to prompt, lowering of the intake port's bottom edge seven millimeters in quest of more midrange.

Further cylinder-hole shuffling included giving the N-model six independent transfer ports (previous RMs also had six, but the two rear transfers on each side were siamesed along much of their length) along with an oval, unbridged exhaust port in place of the '78-model's bridged, widely-eyebrowed port. To complement the new midrange power, the ignition spark curve is two degrees retarded throughout the entire rpm range and a works-type muffler caps off a new pipe not unlike those used on the RH250 factory racers.

Of course, the N-model's willingness to grab onto the racetrack isn't hurt by the fact that its overall gearing is seven-percent taller than the Honda's. But its gearing also helps explain why the RM can't accelerate quite as briskly. The Suzuki's more polite power delivery and taller gearing may make for better rear-wheel hookups on slick or tricky surfaces, but they do so at the expense of the bike's holeshot factor. Changing the 14-tooth countershaft sprocket back to last year's 13-toother not only gives the N-model gear ratios almost identical to the Honda's, it cuts the acceleration gap between the two bikes in half.

Engine performance of the RM's type is not something we're accustomed to experiencing on Japanese motocrossers, but its Eurasian disposition isn't limited to just the motor. The RM's suspension action and steering habits are more reminiscent of a Husqvarna than of anything else, while the Honda is mainstream Japanese-American all the way.

What makes that contrast in performance unbelievable is that the two bikes appear so similar on paper. Their steering geometries are almost identical; the Honda's wheelbase is only a half-inch longer than the Suzuki's; and both front wheels support exactly the same amount of weight (101 pounds) while the CR carries just two more pounds on the rear than does the RM. There are more likenesses, but in the end they don't mean much because the bikes don't handle similarly at all.

One explanation for the on-track differences is that great dissimilarities exist in other areas—such as in spring and damping rates. The Honda, which has exactly the same amount of suspension travel as it did last year, is stiffer than the Suzuki at both ends. The Honda's unreservoired Showa shocks have somewhat relaxed damping rates for '79, and last year's optional soft rear springs are now standard. The spring-only front fork was given just a tad more preload, a smidgen, less rebound damping and a new hydraulic anti-bottoming feature.

On the Suzuki, there are no suspension parts carried over from last year. The Kayaba air/spring fork is new, with 38mm fork tubes for improved front-end rigidity. And the front wheel has gained an inch more travel in the bargain. The rear wheel swings in a 3.2-inch-longer arc than before, partly due to longer Kayaba reservoir shocks that still have the two-way damping adjustment debuted in '78. Most of the added travel comes from having the shocks so radically cantilevered on the novel, extruded-aluminum swingarm which, according to DeCoster, is better than the one on his works bike. And although the wheelbase is five millimeters shorter this year, the swingarm is considerably longer to move its pivot closer to the countershaft sprocket.

Whatever the swingarm's benefits, the Suzuki's suspension system is unquestionably the best ever sold with a Japanese production motocrosser. Both ends, in fact, are so amazingly competent that the RM is the first stocker we've ridden that has a suspension comparable to the Husqvarna's state-of-the-art fork and shocks. The Honda's fork is almost as good as the Suzuki's, but the CR's rear shocks can't race in the same league with the RM's Kayabas.

Like a Husqvarna, the RM glides over the most brutal terrain as though all the bumps were only half as big as they look. With 12 to 14 psi air pressure and 10-weight oil in the fork, the front wheel won't chatter or hop or bounce off-course, even on the cobbiest terrain. And although the full 11.2 inches of travel are easily used up, no normal track obstacle seems able to make the fork bottom perceptibly. Things are even better at the rear, where the infamous Kayaba rear-end kickup on sharp-lipped jumps and bumps has disappeared entirely, regardless of how the shock damping is adjusted.

Bashing over the nasties on the Honda is not as rewarding an experience, although the CR's suspension would be right at the head of the class were it not for the Husky and the Suzuki. The Red Rocket handles huge bumps and landings from lunar-orbit jumps to perfection, and the fork is only the slightest bit more harsh than the RM's on abrupt, choppy surfaces. The shocks don't cushion as efficiently as the fork, though, so the back end isn't as well-behaved over braking ripples, stutter bumps and sharp-edged potholes. Surprisingly, the CR's rear-wheel improprieties don't seem to adversely affect how well the tire follows the track surface. Nonetheless, the RM can soak up much more violence without jarring loose its rider's fillings. And the Suzuki's compliant rear suspension teams up with the easy-going powerband to produce the bike's excellent tractability.

A few stutter-bump problems aside, both motorcycles are comfortable mounts on which to spend a moto. The RM offers a better easy-chair ride than the Honda, which can be to the Suzuki's advantage late in a gruelling race, but the CR is more ergonomically congenial for riders 5-foot-9 and taller. The Suzuki's footpegs are abnormally high, not only from the ground but in relation to the seat and handlebar. This cranks a sharper-than-usual bend in your knees when sitting, and when standing you must bend over further to reach the grips.

Even the act of standing up from the seated position is made more difficult because of the peg height. The Honda, though, is superbly laid-out for stand-up or sit-down riding.

Don't be fooled, incidentally, by the handlebar on the RM. It has such a low rise only because the steering head on the N-model is exceptionally tall for better fork-tube support. The handlebar does position the grips a little low, but for a specific reason—the same reason the seat angles forward and the top of the tank slopes radically rearward. Roger D. wants you locked into sitting right in the middle of the natural valley where the seat and tank meet, with your torso canted slightly forward. The reason is that although the RM will steer with uncanny quickness and precision, it'll do so only when the rider is blazingly aggressive and as much weight as possible is kept on the front wheel.

In contrast, the Honda is willing to bend around all kinds of corners all kinds of ways with equal proficiency. It can slice around the inside of a smooth, flat turn just as nimbly as it will square off a corner or rim-ride around the bowl of a big berm. But the Suzuki doesn't take to riding along the length of long berms; it would rather just slam off them momentarily and change direction like a billiard bank-shot. Moreover, the RM will carve a perfect arc around the inside of flat turns even more sharply than the CR if the rider does what he's supposed to do. And that involves holding the throttle WFO as long as possible when approaching a turn before grabbing both brakes. You dial in a little extra rear brake to start the rear wheel drifting out as the corner is actually entered, finally dumping the throttle wide open at the apex to continue the rear-wheel drift out of the turn. Do it right and the RM will snap around those tight corners so quickly you'll surprise yourself. Do it wrong and you may end up taking a soil sample.

Some of the Suzuki's steering quirks are caused by its soft suspension. The springs are so lightly preloaded that the bike sinks several inches under the weight of the rider, which may be wonderful for absorbing bumps but makes for tremendous steering-geometry changes as the throttle is cracked open or snapped shut, or as the brakes are applied. And therein lies the key to the RM's need for aggressive cornering technique. Anytime you abruptly turn the gas on or off while you're in a turn or approaching one, the geometry changes upset the way the front wheel is making the bike turn. It's better to keep the gas on and rocket around the corners as quickly as possible, which keeps the geometry more consistent.

In the end, the cornering of the Honda is the more predictable, versatile and forgiving of the two, but the RM is capable of being the most accurate. If you ride the wheels off the thing around corners, it will go precisely where you aim it. But for every tenth you back off on your aggressiveness, for every degree of uncertainty you exhibit, the steering precision notches itself back proportionately.

There are no such quirks or conditional clauses involved in either bike's stopping systems, though, for both have sufficiently powerful, easy-to-deal-with brakes at both wheels. The Suzuki sports a new full-width front hub, and its full-floating rear brake is operated by a simple rod for the first time in RM history. The bigger-diameter front brake is not necessarily more powerful than last year's conical-hub brake, but it does seem to offer greater resistance to fading. Both stoppers have about the right amount of sensitivity for motocrossing, but the rear wheel sometimes chatters just as the brake is on the verge of locking up.

Aside from the lack of a brake-pedal height adjuster, the Honda is free of braking idiosyncrasies. The conical front hub works just as powerfully and consistently as the RM's full-width brake, and with a slightly easier lever pull. The rod-operated rear brake, which is on the same side of the wheel as the sprocket, also requires less pedal pressure than the Suzuki's rear brake and is chatter-free at all times.

Ultimately, all this deliberation, this long string of individual evaluations, boils down to one simple question: Which one is best? And in all fairness, honesty and simplicity, the only correct answer is:

Both.

A cop-out, you say? Not on your life.

Because when viewed on an overall basis these motorcycles are of equal competence. They may do what they do in different ways, but they both do it exceptionally well.

Actually, it is possible to rate one of these motorcycles higher than the other, but which one depends upon a number of racing circumstances—like the area the bike will be ridden in, the nature of the racetracks it will be ridden on and the skill of the person who will ride it. Out here in sunny Southern California, for instance, where the tracks are harder than a Safeway parking lot and the main straightaway often is as long as one, horsepower really counts. And for that reason alone, the speedy Honda holds a natural advantage over the DeCosterapproved Suzuki for this area. But there are even certain racetracks and weather conditions here that would make riding the tractable, plushly-suspended RM more appealing than on the Honda.

In other places around the country, where mud, loam, grass, off-cambers and shorter straights are the order of the day, the European flavor of the Suzuki should make it the more ideal ride. But a minor shift in a few track conditions could result in the Honda being the better bike on any given day. By the time you figure in the other variables—riding style and rider ability—the whole "who's best" business suddenly becomes no more certain than a back-alley crapshoot.

The facts are that if you can win on one of these 250s you can win on the other. And if you've never finished better than 26th, neither one is going to take you much closer to first place. So deciding which of the two bikes is for you isn't so hard after all. Just buy the one you like the best. Regardless of what Roger says.

HONDA CR250R

That big red engine is the most important thing about the Honda CR250. It's the only light-flywheeled 250 motocross engine I've ever felt completely at ease with. Even when you let Big Red drift out of its power-band, it still pulls authoritatively. Like the CR125 engine, the Honda 250 engine patiently makes power even while it waits for you to get with the program and dial in enough rpm to uncork its horsepower reserve. When the going gets slick, this sort of powerband naturally proves to be a little skittish, but once a little bit of traction appeared I could dial on the power.

As a result, the Honda proved remarkably easy to ride at semi-competitive speeds. I could slither and skate around like a professional, sliding into berms and skittering out of slow turns effortlessly. The only riding skill required by the Honda was a quick throttle hand.

But for all the fun available on the CR250, I wasn't really confident about riding it to its limit. This motorcycle likes to be controlled with the rear wheel; you change direction with a burst of rpm, not a yank on the handlebar. As a result, I felt as if a transfusion of talent from Marty Smith might be required for me to ride the Honda much faster, because at my skill level, it's easier for me to go fast by steering instead of sliding.—Michael Jordan

It's comforting to know that unless I screw up or there's a Can-Am in my moto, I have a sporting chance to get the holeshot on the CR. That's why the racy red motor is my favorite part of the Elsinore. The instantaneous throttle response and wide powerband both help make the consequences of my riding mistakes less disastrous, and the strong peak power is able to keep my 175-pound frame zipping along at a truly competitive pace. If there's a better 250 engine for the special demands posed by the tracks in this area, I've not tried it.

I only wish I got along with the handling as well as I did the engine. Maybe it was my riding style or some other quirk caused by constantly shifting back and forth between two radically different bikes, but I spent as much time picking up the fallen CR on certain corners as I did riding it around them. Even when we swapped the Honda-exclusive "claw-action" tires for Southern California-standard Metzelers, the front end would break traction and wash out very easily unless it had a berm or something else to bump into. Everything else on the CR worked well for me and I didn't even feel very cramped on it, sitting or standing. But somehow, I couldn't find any of the motorcycle's good points of much use to me while I was lying underneath it.—John Germain■