Naked RX3 - Page 2

Lee R · 03-19-2016, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louis Angel

I did not know those RX3's weighed so much. Just does not look like there is 360 lbs of material there. My Vulcan 500 is right at 400 lbs, but looks like afat pig compared to the 270ish lb. CRF230L sitting next to it. :-D

It's a pretty sturdy motorcycle. If you remove the crash bars and luggage as mentioned the weight gets pretty close to the CRF-250L which is listed at 320 pounds. Keep in mind the RX3 has a gallon and a half more fuel which is about 9 more pounds so your at 329 basically the same. The CRF-230L was smaller but also much less power from the engine.

RX3 makes a couple more HP as well.

I don't think the weights unreasonable at all as it comes with accessories.

Eco Mouse · 03-20-2016, 02:17 AM

The one thing that tripped me out was the diagonal frame up the side of the bike, wasn't aluminum, even though it totally looks like it could be. It's steel. So, I can see a light of extra weight being carried around in just the frame and all the attachment points of the secondary frame rails as well.

They could have accomplished the same stiffness if they just used regular tube there. A trellis tube frame design like Triumph or Ducati.

jct842 · 03-20-2016, 09:33 AM

Never could figure what the beak was for. I like the naked look.

Jay In Milpitas · 03-20-2016, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jct842

Never could figure what the beak was for. I like the naked look.

When BMW was developing the GS, they studied effective dirt bike design details. Dirt bikes had high mounted front fenders which helped to deflect wheel spray away from the rider's face. BMW uses the beak in addition to a fender for the same reason. It's just become sort of a standard part since then,

Louis Angel · 03-20-2016, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee R

..............I don't think the weights unreasonable at all as it comes with accessories.

Oh I certainly agree with that. It is a good solid weight. The intention of
my statement was that I was surprised it is built as heavy as it is.
I guess somewhere in my subconscious mind I thought it would be much
lighter with all the add on stuff taken off. ( I had not previously heard of
the " 50 lbs. " thing before I first read this post )
If anything it just pushes me that much further towards buying one.

SpudRider · 03-20-2016, 08:59 PM

The RX3 is built strong, to carry heavy loads. You won't crack the subframe if you load up your RX3 for an adventure.

03-20-2016, 08:59 PM	#21
SpudRider Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Idaho Posts: 25,054	The RX3 is built strong, to carry heavy loads. You won't crack the subframe if you load up your RX3 for an adventure. __________________ Spud "Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level, and beat you with experience." Mark Twain 2015 Zongshen ZS250GY-3 (RX3) 2006 Zongshen ZS200GY-2 (Sierra 200) 2005 Honda XR650L 2004 Honda CRF250X 1998 Kawasaki KDX220 Mods made to my Zongshen ZS200GY-2: http://www.chinariders.net/showthread.php?t=6894
	1

03-20-2016, 02:17 AM	#17
Eco Mouse Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 158	The one thing that tripped me out was the diagonal frame up the side of the bike, wasn't aluminum, even though it totally looks like it could be. It's steel. So, I can see a light of extra weight being carried around in just the frame and all the attachment points of the secondary frame rails as well. They could have accomplished the same stiffness if they just used regular tube there. A trellis tube frame design like Triumph or Ducati.
	0

03-20-2016, 09:33 AM	#18
jct842 Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: arkansas Posts: 297	Never could figure what the beak was for. I like the naked look.
	0