Author: Joe Berk

The Question: An RX4 or a KLR?

As you know, we published a series of blogs comparing the RX3 and RX4 motorcycles. Those have been widely read and we’ve received many comments from you, our readers.  Thanks for that, folks.

My good buddy Chris offered a brilliant suggestion a week or so ago:  We ought to compare the RX4 to the Kawasaki KLR 650, he said. That’s an idea that’s so good I’m embarrassed I didn’t think of it.  Chris pointed out that I had owned a KLR 650, I rode it extensively both on and offroad in Baja and here in the US, and I was in a position to make the comparison. That makes sense. It also makes sense because since the RX3’s introduction, a constant refrain from the China-bashers was that you could buy a used KLR for what a new RX3 cost. That’s not true; used KLRs generally cost less than a new RX3, but that’s neither here nor there. It might become more relevant now that the KLR has been discontinued, because it won’t be long before the only kind of KLR you can buy will be a used one.

My KLR in Guerrero Negro, with the only two dogs in Mexico that did not want a piece of me.
The RX4 in the San Gabriel Mountains. It’s a magnificent motorcycle

First, a bit of background. I bought a new KLR in 2006 and I rode it for roughly 10 years before selling it with 15,000 miles on the clock. That may not seem like a lot of miles for 10 years, but there were times during that period when I owned as many as six motorcycles, somewhere in there I took a year off to recuperate from a bad motorcycle accident, and after 2009 I was spending most of my seat time on other bikes as a consequence of my CSC association.  But before that, a lot of my KLR time was in Baja and a good chunk of that was spent in the soft stuff.

Somewhere in Baja along the Transpeninsular Highway.

Another bit a trivia you should know: I’m a big fan of the KLR 650. Kawasaki didn’t keep that bike in production for 30+ years because it was a turkey. The KLR 650 was (and still is) a great motorcycle. It makes way more sense for serious adventure riding than do any of the liter-plus/full-figured/stratospheric-seat-height litter of current offerings from Japan, Germany, Austria, and Italy. I say that with great confidence because when I was writing the CSC blog, I watched CSC sell boatloads of RX3 motorcycles (literally, boatloads) to guys who owned monster ADV bikes but were afraid to ride them off road.  Big bikes off road just don’t make a lot of sense. Not to me, anyway.

Like I said above, my KLR was a 2006 model, which made it a First Gen KLR. There were basically two KLR iterations: Ones that burned a lot of oil, and ones that did not. Well, okay, I’m being a little sarcastic. The First Gen KLRs went from the mid-‘80s to 2007, and they ran well. In 2008, the great green Good Times Folks introduced a restyled KLR with a slightly-tweaked engine (those were the Gen II bikes, for which production concluded this year). A serious oil consumption problem ensued with the 2008 Gen II engine tweaks, which was subsequently corrected by Kawasaki. There were other minor differences: Reduced fork travel, a new dash, and the aforementioned-styling changes.   And, the Big K claimed a fix for the doohickey issue (more on that in a bit).  Other than that, the Gen I and Gen II KLRs are essentially the same motorcycle.

Don’t take my snarkiness as a dart aimed at the KLR. Like I said above, it was (and still is) a great motorcycle. I loved mine. And like I also said above, the KLR didn’t have a three-decade production run because it was a bad motorcycle. They are, in fact, great motorcycles.  The question here is not whether or not the KLR is a good bike (it is); rather, the question is: How does the RX4 compare to the KLR?  We’re getting there, folks, but let me go tangential a bit first.

So why did Kawasaki discontinue the KLR?  Gresh and I wrote a couple of blogs about that and what might follow the KLR (see here and here). In my opinion, Kawasaki’s decision was most likely based on sales and profitability. Manufacturers don’t discontinue products when they are selling well and making money. Some of the self-appointed keyboard commandos filled the forums with opinions, one of which was that Kawasaki killed the KLR because it was carbureted. That’s pure Bandini, folks. CSC Motorcycles, Janus Motorcycles, and others get carbed bikes approved by EPA and CARB on a regular basis. Carbs are  fine as long as the bike meets Uncle Sam’s and the Peoples Republik’s emissions requirements.

Okay, I guess that’s enough background. Let’s get to the main attraction of this piece, which is how the KLR and the RX4 compare.

The RX4 450cc fuel-injected engine. It has more horsepower but less torque than the KLR 650.

As good as place to start as any is speed and acceleration. The KLR 650 and the 450cc RX4 have essentially the same top speed, which is approximately 100 mph. Handling at top speed is another topic, and I’ll get to that in a second. From an acceleration perspective (and this is all from Berk-butt-based impressions not involving the use of a stopwatch), the KLR has a bit more grunt on the bottom end, and the RX4 pulls a little stronger near the top end. The KLR, to me, felt more torquey at low rpm (and I liked that). When you consider the two bikes’ horsepower and torque specs (assuming what the manufacturers are telling us is accurate), the reason becomes apparent. The 450cc RX4 has 40.2 horsepower and 27.3 ft-lb torque, the 650cc KLR has 36 horsepower and 33.4 ft-lb torque.  More torque means more bottom end (the KLR has more torque and a stronger bottom end pull), more horsepower means more of a top end rush (the RX4 has more horsepower and feels substantially stronger than the KLR above 70 mph; much of that is also due to the RX4’s better high-speed handling).

Okay, let’s talk about, and that bring us to the doohickey business. The doohickey is the KLR 650’s spring-loaded counterbalancer drive chain tensioner (a mouthful, I know). The Gen I KLR part was a cheap stamped weldment, and it had a tendency to fail (taking the engine with it). Kawasaki never admitted it was a problem, but they improved the part for the Gen II KLR engine. Folks who were serious about their KLRs replaced the stock doohickey with a much better machined part from Eagle Mike (a great guy who is a legend in the KLR community).  I replaced the doohickey at the 500-mile service on my KLR (which I did myself).

It bothered me that Kawasaki became the Good Times Ostrich on this doohickey business.  I have no doubt it was a genuine weakness.  There are no known comparable weaknesses on either the RX3 or the RX4 (although admittedly, the RX4 doesn’t have the miles yet to really know). What I do know is that where there were issues in the first shipment of RX3 motorcycles, CSC stepped up immediately (and publicly). I was one of the guys who communicated with CSC customers, and if you don’t believe that, read the CSC blog and buy a copy of 5000 Miles At 8000 RPM. Kawasaki ignored the doohickey issue the entire time it existed. In my book, that gives a clear advantage to CSC and Zongshen. Yeah, I’m biased toward CSC. I admit that. But facts are facts.

Back to the motorcycles…another difference is the transmission.  The RX4 has a six-speed gearbox; the KLR has a five-speed.  That’s perceived as a big deal, I guess, by most folks.  The reality is that five gears were enough for me, but I suppose six are nicer.   Back in the day I rode a lot of motorcycles with four-speed transmissions and I never felt like I was missing anything.  But it’s a difference, and on this count, the nod goes to the RX4.  Also, the RX4 has a gear indicator on the dash; the KLR does not.  Is that a real issue?   Not for me.  Maybe I’m conceited, but I kind 0f know what gear I’m in all the time.  But again, it’s something the RX4 has that the KLR does not.  Where there is a transmission issue that’s worth noting is first gear.  On the KLR it is a granny gear; it’s way lower than second.   All of the gears on the RX4 (including first) are closely spaced.   I would have liked the KLR better if its gears were similarly closely spaced.   On the KLR, when you drop the bike into first, it’s really throwing out the anchor. On the RX4, it’s just one gear down.

As a fuel-injected bike with a smaller displacement engine, the RX4 is probably the winner from a fuel economy perspective. The Zongers tell me that the RX4 will get 65.3 mpg, but I haven’t verified that. I’m guessing I could do better (I usually do better than the manufacturer’s claims).  My KLR returned a measured mid-50s mpg figure when I rode it at reasonable speeds. From a range perspective, I expect the two bikes are about the same. I could get an honest 250-miles out of a tank on the KLR. The RX4 has a 0.7-gallon smaller tank than the KLR (but it’s bigger than the RX3’s tank by one gallon), and as mentioned above it will probably get better fuel economy. There’s that business about how much fuel the RX4’s tank will actually hold when you delete the volume occupied by the fuel pump. From my perspective, if a bike can go 200 miles, that’s good enough for me (that’s the stretch south from El Rosario to the next Pemex, just north of Guerrero Negro). I’m pretty confident the RX4 will do 250 miles, and I know the KLR will.

Let’s talk handling. On the street, in the twisties, and at highway speeds and above the RX4 is the clear winner. The KLR gets very light and drifty at anything over an indicated 75 mph, and it’s downright gangly when pushed hard in the twisties. You can go faster than 75 mph on a KLR, but I didn’t feel comfortable on my KLR doing that.  The RX4, on the other hand, feels rock solid up to indicated 99 mph (and it had more left at that speed; I just ran out of room). In the twisties, the RX4 is in its element. The RX4’s stock CST tires are great, and the RX4 frame, forks, rear suspension, and geometry are modern. The RX4 feels way more planted and secure in the twisties and at high speed than does the KLR (so does the RX3).  The RX4’s design is nearly four decades more advanced than the KLR’s.  What I’m saying here is not a slam on the KLR; that old bike did pretty well for its 30-year run.

On the tire issue, I like the CSTs that come with the RX3 and the RX4.  I get great life out of the CST tires on my RX3 (usually, 6000 miles on a rear tire).  The Kendas that come on the KLR are, at best, 2500-mile tires.  They hook up okay, but they don’t last long.  I replaced my KLR tires with Shinkos and never looked back.

On the issue of consumables, I got good life on my KLR’s chain.  I had good buddy Gerry throw a new chain on the KLR at 14,000 miles, but it didn’t really need it.  I don’t know about the stock chain’s life on the RX4, but the stock chain on the RX3 is a substandard component that is toast after about 5000 miles (and that, to borrow a word made popular two years ago, is deplorable).   Like I said, I don’t know if Zongshen addressed this on the RX4, but if the chain is from the same company that provides the chain on the RX3, I’d expect to replace it with a real chain either immediately or after just a few thousand miles.  The KLR gets my nod for stock chain life unless Zongshen has addressed this issue.

One more note on the Kawasaki’s road manners. My Gen I had this monstrous Tupperware fender that was attached high and wide on the forks. It caught any wind blowing from the side and that had a tendency to steer the bike. I think it was also one of the things that made the KLR’s high-speed handling flighty. The Gen II design changed the front fender, but I haven’t ridden a Gen II bike. I don’t know if the Gen II’s redesigned fender made the problem go away.   As I said earlier, the RX4 is much better behaved at high speed.

I have not yet ridden the RX4 off road, so a lot of what I’m going to say next is speculation on my part. But it’s informed speculation. I felt my KLR did very well in the dirt and soft sand. The KLR is heavy, but it has good bottom end grunt and more torque than the RX4.  That allowed me to get up to speed and on top of soft sand quickly. The KLR’s 21-inch front wheel helps, too (the RX4 has a 19-inch front wheel, and in anticipation of the obvious question, I don’t know if a 21-inch front wheel can be fitted to the RX4). The offroad keyboard commandos say the KLR is a pig in the dirt. Hey, what do I know? I thought it did well when I was tear-assing around Baja. I don’t know the suspension travel on the RX4, but I’m pretty sure it’s going to be less than the KLR. The bottom line: I think the KLR is the better choice if you are going to ride exclusively in the dirt. But then if you were going to do that you probably would not buy a KLR (there are other, better choices for dirt bikes).

I went a lot of places off road in Mexico. This is near El Marmol. I was with good buddy Baja John, who also rode a KLR.
Another KLR Baja boonies photo, near a Pacific coast shipwreck.

With regard to standard equipment, there’s no comparison. The RX4 is equipped with luggage, better instrumentation, dual front disks, adjustable suspension, adjustable windshield, engine guards, 300-watt alternator, accessory outlets, switchable ABS, fuel injection, and that six-speed transmission. The KLR 650 has none of these things.

I had soft luggage on my KLR, which worked well enough, but I couldn’t lock it and it gave the bike a Beverly Hillbillies kind of look (not that there’s anything wrong with hillbillies).  Some people like that look.  I did at the time because it was a step up from bungee cords and gym bags.  But that’s old school.  The RX4 luggage is a huge improvement (both the stock bags and the optional aluminum bags).

From a maintenance perspective, the RX4 gets the nod. For starters, if CSC does what they have done for all their other bikes, you’ll get a shop manual and online maintenance tutorials for free. You won’t get that with a used KLR (and you didn’t get it with a new KLR, either). That means if you own a KLR you either bought a shop manual to do the work yourself, or you went to the dealer for maintenance. I’m not a big fan of dealer technicians for three reasons:  Cost, competence, and honesty.

I believe the RX4 will be easier to maintain than the KLR. I don’t know this for a fact yet, but based on the RX3’s reliability and design I suspect it will be the case. The RX3 uses threaded adjustor nuts for adjusting the valves, and I’m guessing the RX4 will, too (I haven’t removed the valve covers on the RX4 yet). I know that the KLR uses shims and buckets; that approach greatly complicates the valve adjustment process.  It involves removing both cams and it makes adjustments technically challenging and time consuming (which dealers and technicians love, because you get to pay for the time).

From a price perspective, a new RX4 will cost less than what a new KLR cost.  And that’s before the typical Kawi dealer’s obscenely-bloated setup, freight, and documentation fees (it’s not unheard of for dealers to routinely add $1500 freight and setup fees).  Folks, from the port to just about anywhere in the US, you can ship a bike for not more than $400, so the dealer shipping fees they put on their pricing sheets are twice (or more) actual cost.  And their setup fees are pure, well, you know. Ask your dealer if they do the setup themselves or if they outsource it. Most dealers go with Door No. 2.  Outsourced motorcycle setups typically cost between $35 and $50 per bike, and they are done by unskilled labor (not trained motorcycle techs). I know this because I’ve been an expert witness in motorcycle lawsuits, and this is what the dealers admit when they have to tell the truth during the discovery and deposition process.  How much effort goes into setup and how well is it done?  Let me explain it this way:  When I bought my new KLR in 2006, the windshield fell off during the 5-mile ride home.  It’s a ripoff of gargantuan proportions.  I’ve never paid anywhere that much, but it’s what many of the dealers ask.  It’s dishonest.

Back to that earlier keyboard commando statement:  You can buy a used KLR for less than a new (fill in the blanks with any brand).  Regarding used KLRs (which they all will be pretty soon), there’s no argument here:  A used KLR will be less expensive than a new RX4.  Duh.  But then you’d have a used motorcycle with no warranty. If you want to go that route, someday in the near future you’ll be able to buy a used RX4, too.  A used RX4 might be even less than a used KLR.  I never understood the argument that posits you can buy something used for less money than new, particularly when it’s put forth by people with the same kind of conviction they might display if they had just discovered and announced that F=ma.  It’s kind of like saying things fall when you drop them. The statement about new versus used is a dumb one. It’s obvious. Buy used, and it costs less.  That’s true for just about everything on the planet (except maybe some guns). Like I said: Duh.

With regard to comfort, that’s a tough one. I’d say that’s a draw, with maybe the edge going to the RX4. I felt the ergos were perfect on my KLR. I also feel that way about the RX3 and the RX4. While I’m on that topic, I’ll briefly mention the RX3S (the 380cc twin from Zongshen with ADV styling and equipment comparable to the RX3 and the RX4). The RX3S had terrible ergos. My feet felt like they were scrunched up to my butt and my hips hurt as soon as I got on the RX3S. The RX3S might be a good bike, but with the current feet/butt/handlebars relationship, it was a nonstarter for me.  To go tangential again for a second, I didn’t get the naming, either.  The RX3S?  Is that like a plural RX3?

Back to the KLR:  The stock KLR seat is way too soft, which sounds like it would be a good thing, but that squishy seat gets uncomfortable quickly.  I fixed that with a sheepskin seat pad, which I also use on RX3.  The stock RX3 and RX4 seats (the two bikes use the same seat) won’t win any prizes for all-day comfort, but to me they are tolerable. The KLR 650 seat sits significantly higher than the RX4. When I rode my KLR, it was a tippy-toes affair at every stop (if you play for the Knicks, this won’t be a problem, but I don’t and for me it was an annoyance). The RX4 is not nearly as tall. I liked it better from a seat height perspective.  It is slightly taller than the RX3 but lower than the KLR, and way lower than the GS1200 or those Special K giraffes from Austria.

Having said the above about seat height, I will tell you that the KLR was a bit easier for me to move around in the driveway than is the RX4. Kawasaki advertised the KLR’s weight at 432 lbs, which I know is baloney (mine tipped the scales well above that number). Zongshen advertises the RX4 at 450 lbs, and as you now from reading my previous blogs, I haven’t weighed the bike.   Pushing the bike around in my driveway, though, the RX4 felt heavy.  Maybe that’s just be the result of me being used to my RX3.  But once I was moving on the RX4, it felt way more planted and it handled way better than the KLR (both in the twisties and at high speed), and it didn’t feel heavy at all. I can’t quantify the difference; I’m only giving you my impressions.

World class fit and finish are what the RX4 is all about. The RX4 is way ahead of the KLR in this area. I think it is as good or better than any motorcycle made anywhere, by anyone.

Fit and finish are unquestionably superior on the RX4. That’s not just compared to the KLR; that’s compared to any bike. Those of you who haven’t owned an RX3 may default to the typical China-bashing response.  You know, the one that says:  That-can’t-be-possible-it’s-made-in-China.  But it is what it is. I think the finish on the RX4 is even better than the RX3. It’s very good. Little things stand out. The RX4 footpegs are nicely-cast aluminum affairs with rubber inserts; the KLR’s footpegs are cheap bent stampings with a rubber liner that wears out quickly. The RX4 has tapered handlebars and high-end switchgear; the KLR has a regular constant-diameter handlebars and cheap switches. The RX4 paint is world class (it’s deep and luxurious); the KLR used plastic with the colors molded in. The RX4 has a steel skid plate and engine guards as standard equipment; the KLR has no engine guards and a plastic skid plate.  A plastic skid plate? Really, Kawasaki?

The windshield on the RX4 looks better finished, it’s adjustable, and it just flat works better than does the KLR windshield (and the RX4 windshield didn’t fall off on the way home). I know, I know, I keep coming back to that windshield falling off my KLR on the ride home from the dealer. It still pisses me off, even though I negotiated the Kawasaki dealer setup fee down from pure larceny to a much-more-modest profit contribution. What rubbed salt in that wound was that the KLR windshield mounting screws were lost when the windshield fell off, they were non-standard screws, and when I went back to the dealer they didn’t have them in stock. In my experience, that last part is a typical response from most dealers (you know, the not-in-stock thing). CSC stocks everything; that’s another plus for the RX4.  While I’m on a windshield roll, there’s one more thing that I didn’t like about the KLR’s windshield.  I went through five or six of the things over the life of the bike.  They always developed cranks that migrated out from the mounting holes, mandating a replacement windscreen.  My RX3 never did that, and I suspect the RX4 won’t, either.

Having said all of the above, I liked the looks of my First Gen KLR. Yeah, it was a Tupperware Titan, but I liked it. It was a tool that looked like a tool. It was utilitarian and honest. I think the Gen II KLR looked like Kawasaki was trying to put lipstick on a pig. I like my pigs to look like pigs.  The Gen I KLR did and I liked that.

I already mentioned that the RX4 comes standard with USB and 12V power outlets, and underseat accessory plugs. The RX4 has a 300-watt alternator; the KLR alternator output is substantially lower.  A funny story about CSC’s practice of putting 300-watt alternators on their ADV bikes:  When I was looking at the RX3 in Chongqing back in 2014, I saw a police variant.  I asked the Zongmen how the police versions handled the extra police equipment.  A Zongshen engineer told me that they install 300-watt alternators on the police bikes to support the added lights, flashers, radio gear, siren, speakers, etc.   Hmmmm, could CSC get that on all of its bikes?   No problemo, they said.  And thus the 300-watt CSC legend was born.  The TT250 has a 300-watt alternator, too.

The RX4 instruments are the same as those on the RX3. While the info is more complete than on the KLR, lighting for the RX4 and RX3 indicator lights (the turn signal indicators, the high beam indicator, etc.) is too dim to read in the daytime. My good buddy Rob Morel has relatively simple fix for this problem; he removed the sort-of-translucent plastic layer between the lamps and the dash cover, and oila, now you can see the indicator lights. Zongshen ought to spec all of their bikes that way.

Neither the RX4 nor the KLR has a centerstand. Both bikes have tool kits, but both are laughable.  The stock tool kits are the standard cheap items you get with most new bikes, if you get anything at all (my umpteen-thousand-dollar Harley Softail had no toolkit whatsoever, which is kind of funny if you think about it).

So there you have it. Chris, my apologies for the longwinded response to your question about the RX4 and the KLR.  Thanks very much for the suggestion.

Having said all of the above, I guess the obvious question is: What would I buy?  I wasn’t riding my KLR very much the last few years I owned it because I had my RX3 and TT250.   I finally sold the KLR, but I miss the bike and like I said, I enjoyed it. If I had to make a choice, would I buy a new KLR or a new RX4?  A motorcycle is an emotional purchase and an individual decision, and it’s a decision not usually based on logic. My belief is that most people buy a motorcycle that projects an image they want to see of themselves, which is why the industry has tended toward oversized, overpowered, and ridiculously-tall adventure bikes. KLR versus RX4? I don’t think it would be a mistake going with either bike.  But I am convinced the RX4 is a much better motorcycle.

Want to see the RX3 versus RX4 comparisons?  You can do so here.

Want to read about the RX3 and KLR adventures in Baja?   Pick up a copy of Moto Baja!

RX3 to RX4 Comparisons: Part 5

This will be the final installment of the RX3 and RX4 comparisons.  We’ve got one more coming up after this, and that’s the RX4-to-KLR 650 comparis0n.  And then, another cool and quick review…the BMW GS 310.  Yep, I rode one of those yesterday to get a feel for how it compares to the RX3.  That will be in another review.  For now, on to the RX3 and RX4 final comparison in this series…

Take a look at the swingarms on the RX3 and the RX4.  The RX4 has a much beefier unit, as you can see below.

The RX3 swingarm. Note how the end is formed to accept the rear axle mounting hardware.
The RX4 swingarm. It appears to be a much stronger unit. Note the machined part that mounts the rear axle (compare this to the bent metal piece on the RX3). Also note the robotic weld quality.

Overall, the RX4 swingarm appears to be much better design than that on the RX3.  The only aspect of the RX3’s swingarm that I think I like better is the axle adjustment design. On the RX3, the threaded adjusters can be used to move the rear wheel forward or backward.  On the RX4, it looks like Zongshen took a more conventional approach, where the adjusters can be used to move the wheel rearward, but you have to manually push the wheel forward.

I may have already mentioned this next point in an earlier blog, but I’ll mention it again.  On the RX4, the exhaust pipe sweeps down and under the engine, and then it sweeps up again to the muffler behind the engine.  The RX3 has an upswept pipe.

The RX4 exhaust pipe. It goes under the engine.
The RX3 uses an upswept exhaust pipe.

The purist will undoubtedly flood the forums with comments about the RX4’s downswept pipe.  My reaction is: Meh.   It’s the same approach as used on my Triumph Tiger.  Upswept, downswept, six to one, half a dozen to the other.  As the Germans say, machst nicht.  That is, unless you’re changing the oil or adding oil.  Then the RX4’s downswept pipe (and the improved access it offers to the oil fill ports) starts looking pretty good.

Here’s another significant difference:  The radiator.  The RX4 uses a single large radiator, compared to the RX3’s two smaller radiators.

The RX4 radiator. It comes with the shield you see here.
Although they are hard to see in this photograph, the RX3 has two separate radiators. They are located behind the plastic grills.

I like the RX4 radiator approach better.   Simple is better in the engineering world, and a single radiator makes a lot more sense to me.

Moving on, we’ll next take a look at the grips and controls on the RX3 and the RX4.   The RX3 photos you see here are my RX3, which is a 2015 model.  In 2015, the RX3 did not have bar end balancers, but Zongshen added these in 2016 and beyond.  Also, the 2015 RX3 had chromed bars, all subsequent years had subdued silver paint on the bars.

When Zongshen made the RX3 handlebar change, I wondered why they messed with something that worked so well.   There was more to the story than I knew at the time.  It basically went like this:  The Chinese motorcycle industry took a major hit and underwent a significant shakeout in recent years.  The US motorcycle market did, too.  Here at home, the market dropped to 50% of its former levels with the Great Recession of 2008, and it has never moved much beyond that point since.  We had a double whammy here:  Banks and lending companies stopped giving 4th, 5th, and 6th mortgages to folks wanting to buy motorcycles (I’m exaggerating, but only slightly), and our demographics changed.  Older guys aren’t buying bikes like they used to (they’re aging out), and Millenials are more interested in cell phones and self-driving cars than they are in motorcycles.  And while all of this was going on, the industry here in the US continued (and continues) to offer outsized and overpriced choices.  In China, there has similarly been a double whammy, but the two strikes are of a different nature.   China is concentrating its population in the cities, and (incredibly) China is outlawing motorcycles in its cities.   I know, it’s nuts, but it is what it is.

Anyway, all of this caught up with the Chinese motorcycle industry, and a lot of lower level motorcycle component suppliers in China finally called it a day in 2015-2016.   That’s what resulted in the need for a new RX3 handlebar supplier going into the 2016 model year.  With that change, Zongshen included bar end weights, which I think were unnecessary.  Nah, change that:  I know they were unnecessary, because I have a 2015 RX3 with no bar end weights and a zillion miles on the clock, and I’ve never had an issue with vibration.

All righty then…to dial this back to today, the bottom line is that both the RX3 and the RX4 have bar end weights.  But not mine, because it’s a 2015 RX3.   With that in mind, here we go…

The left grip and controls on the 2015 RX3. The rocker switch you see on the right, just below the lever mounts, controls my spotlights. They are a one-off Colombian model, having been given to me by Enrique Vargas, General Manager of AKT Motos in Medellin.
The left hand grip and controls on the RX4. The grip design is a little different than my 2015 RX3 design, but the left-side controls are identical to the RX3. Note the bar-end weight. I was disappointed when I saw this; there is an unsightly gap between the bar-end weight and the grip. I’m guessing this will be corrected for the production RX4 when Zongshen reads this comment. Overall, the bike is great. This is the only thing I could find to bitch about. That’s a pretty good showing, I think.

So, about that sloppy bar-end fit on the left side of the RX4 preproduction prototype:  While I was disappointed in this minor detail, I have to point out that it was the only area on the motorcycle that was poorly fit.   Every other aspect of the RX4 (and I mean  literally every other bit related to fit and finish) was absolutely world class.  The bike just screams quality.  The paint, the fit, the finish, everything.  Except that sloppy left side bar-end weight.

Moving on to the right side of the bike, here’s the right side grip and control area on my RX3.  Note the A2, A1, and O switch; it controls the RX3’s underseat accessory plugs.

The RX3 right side grip and controls. This is on my 2015 RX3.

Here’s the same view of the RX4’s right side grip.

The RX4 right side grip and controls. Note the bar-end weight.

The photo above shows the RX4 preproduction bike, which has the headlight switch for on, auto, and off.  I’m told the US configuration bikes will only have the on and auto positions.  The on position turns on the headlight; the auto position leaves the LED headlight outline on all the time but only turns the headlight on when it senses it is dark.  The A1 and A2 switch for the underseat accessory plugs will be controlled by an optional CSC-unique handlebar-mounted switch.  At least that’s the plan as of this writing.

On this issue of bar-end weights:  Like I said above, vibration is a non-issue on both bikes.  If I concentrate on trying to feel it, I guess I would say the RX4 has a barely-detectable higher vibration level than the RX3, but you have to really focus on trying to tell the difference.  I’d drop the bar-end weights on both bikes.  But then, I don’t make a million motorcycles a year.  Zongshen does.

The big difference in the wheels between the RX4 and the RX3 is that the RX3 has spoked steel rims and cast wheels are not an option.  On the RX4, the wheels are spoked aluminum rims, and cast aluminum wheels are an option.

The RX4 front wheel and tire. Note the aluminum rim, radial tires, and 19-inch front wheel.
The RX4 rear wheel. Note the larger rear tire, the aluminum rim, and the radial tire.

For comparison, here’s the wheel and tire on the front of my RX3.

The RX3 front wheel and tire. Steel rims, and non-radial tires.

The last area I’ll describe is the dash and instrumentation, and that part is easy:  They are identical.   Well, almost.  The instrumentation is the same.  The dash is a little different in that on the RX3, the USB and 12V chargers are optional accessories; on the RX4, they are standard equipment.

The dash on my RX3. I did not get the optional USB and 12V charging outlets.
The RX4 dash. Note the standard equipment accessory charging outlets.

The RX4 instruments, which are identical to the RX3’s (including the 10-12% optimistic speedometers).  Note the standard-equipment USB and 12V accessory outlets to the left and right of the speedometer. And folks, that wraps it up on the RX3-versus-RX4 comparisons.  It was fun, and it was really fun to be the first to evaluate the RX4 and publish these findings on it here on the ExhaustNotes blog.  My overall take is that the RX4 is a quality machine.  It’s a little heavier than the RX3, but I suppose that’s to be expected on a motorcycle with nearly twice the displacement of the RX3.  The handling and freeway performance is a substantial notch above the RX3.   I don’t believe anyone is offering a comparable, fully-equipped adventure touring package at any price in the 450cc class, and that makes this motorcycle noteworthy (especially in view of the fact that this displacement is so obviously perfect for a serious roadburner).   CSC asked me to mention that they are taking deposits now, and here’s the page where you can do that.

If you’d like to read all of the RX3-to-RX4 comparisons, here’s the page to do that.   Stay tuned, because we have an RX4-to-KLR comparison coming up soon, and (as mentioned above), we’ll also be publishing a quick ride review of the BMW GS 310.  BMW has a significantly different path to market than does CSC, and that difference (to me) is even more interesting than is a comparison between the two motorcycles.  We’ll talk about that, too.

Don’t forget to consider signing up for our email updates list.  You can do that by entering your email address on the widget at the top right of this page (if you’re on a desktop) or at the bottom of this blog (if you’re using your smartphone to read this blog).   We’re having a contest to give a away a free copy of one of our motobooks in December if your name is on our email list.   And we won’t share you email address with anyone else.

Yesterday was a fun day.  I was at Brown BMW in the morning for my GS 310 ride, and I got to chat with Bob Brown a bit while I was there.  Then it was over to CSC to visit with the guys there.  I’m happy to report that both places were hopping.  This morning, I’m off to the rifle range to evaluate a few new loads, and tomorrow, it’s the International Motorcycle Show in Long Beach (watch for the photos here on the ExhaustNotes blog).  Good times, folks.

Jack on the Rocks

I had a hard time deciding on the title for this blog.  The other contender was “Thank you for your service.”

Sue and I traveled through Tennessee last week. It’s a glorious state with a lot to see. I expected that. What I didn’t expect was the way we were treated on Veteran’s Day. I couldn’t pay for anything. When Sue and I went to the Jack Daniel’s Distillery in Lynchburg, they asked if either of us were veterans. I guess I was surprised at the question and I didn’t answer immediately, but Sue did. “Yes, my husband was in the Army.”

“There’s no charge for you today, then, sir, and thank you for your service.”

Wow, I just saved $20. That was nice.

Melissa, our tour guide at Jack Daniel’s.

The Jack Daniel’s tour was fun, even though it was raining cats and dogs on that fine Tennessee Veteran’s Day. Our tour guide, Melissa, made it especially so, with one great story after another. I’ve known of Jack Daniel’s for a long time; what I didn’t know was that it was a sleepy backwater distillery for most of its life until a young crooner named Frank Sinatra made it known he wouldn’t drink anything else.  Frank Sinatra was buried with a bottle of Jack, along with a dollar’s worth of dimes because he didn’t know where he was going, but he knew they might have pay phones there. Frank Sinatra’s favor put Jack Daniel’s on the map, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Jack on display. They have two more varieties in addition to those shown here (Honey, and Fire).

I found out that if you work at Jack Daniel’s, you get a free bottle of Jack every month (and they are always hiring). I learned that every bottle of Jack Daniel’s ever made has been made at that plant, which is fed by an underground spring with water that is perfect for producing Tennessee sipping whiskey. I learned that you can buy Jack Daniel’s by the barrel, and more than a few folks do (they have an entire wall lined with small plaques denoting those who did). Melissa walked us through the entire manufacturing process, and as a former manufacturing guy, I found it fascinating. They have a statue of Jack Daniel standing on several large boulders and, of course, they refer to it as “Jack on the Rocks.” We opted for the tasting tour at the end, and I learned that there are actually five variants of Old No. 7. All of them are really, really good. We had a blast.

Ready for sipping. All were great.
I always get one photo of Sue that defines the trip. This is the one from our recent Tennessee Tour.

After our amazing Jack Daniel’s tour, we stopped for lunch at the Southern Perks restaurant in Lynchburg. When we ordered our lunch, the young lady behind the counter popped the same question: Are either of you veterans? Again, Sue was quick to answer, and again, the response was the same: “Thank you for your service, sir. Your lunch is on us today.”

Downtown Lynchburg. It was a fun place.

Wow. I was speechless. A little choked up, actually. I’ve never been treated like this, and I left the Army a cool 42 years ago. I didn’t know what to say, and like always, I thought of the right response too late. When I hear “Thanks for your service” the next time, I’ll have my answer ready.

It was my pleasure.

The Chattanooga Choo Choo, Chickamauga, Chicken Shawerma, and more…

I’ve blown by Chattanooga a bunch of times on Interstate 24 and I’ve seen the sign for the Chattanooga Choo Choo.  I always wanted to stop to see it.  But I never had.  Until today, that is.  Yep, there really is such a thing…

The real deal: The Chattanooga Choo Choo. It’s on display behind a hotel of the same name, just a hop, skip, and a jump from the Interstate and downtown Chattanooga’s other attractions.

This is my first visit to this fine southern city, and folks, I’m here to tell you:  Chattanooga is a fabulous town.  I had no idea.  This is a wonderful place, nestled along the Tennessee River close to the Georgia border.   The Chattanooga Choo Choo.  Lookout Mountain and Ruby Falls.  Moon Pies (yep, for real).   Great walking paths.  Nearby Chickamauga Battlefield National Park.  An incredible Civil War rifle collection.  Dining that makes the word “fabulous” seem wholly inadequate.  The verdict is in: I like this place!

So, what’s the deal with Moon Pies?  Hey, if you’ve never heard of Moon Pies, you need to get out more often.   And if you’ve never tasted one, well, trust me on this:   You owe yourself this treat.  It turns out that Chattanooga is where Moon Pies are made, you can get them in just about any local store, and there’s actually an official Moon Pie factory outlet in downtown Chattanooga.  That fact, all by itself, makes Chattanooga a bucket list destination!

Chattanooga: Home of the Moon Pie.
Heaven in multipack cartons. We bought several to bring home.
And we sampled a few, too. That other treat? That’s a Goo Goo, another local treat made in nearby Nashville, but that’s a story for another blog.

Lookout Mountain is another cool spot in Chattanooga, with an underground cave system that actually includes a 140-foot waterfall (all of which is underground).  Think Jules Verne and a journey to the center of the earth.  Yep, we hit it, too!

Deep in Lookout Mountain, headed for Ruby Falls.
Imagine what it must have been like to discover this while exploring an underground cave. Meet Ruby Falls, 140-ft tall, and all underground.

We had an incredible lunch at The 405, a place we just happened upon while walking around downtown.  The 405 is a Middle Eastern restaurant (I love Middle Eastern food) and it’s another one of Chattanooga’s best kept secrets.  I had a chicken shawerma sandwich and it was fabulous, with juicy roasted chicken, a perfect Tahini sauce, and pita bread made fresh on the premises.  I told our waitress I write a blog for the most discerning riders on the planet (that would be you), and the owner was at my table in a heartbeat.  It turns out that my new good buddy and restauranteur Rashad is one of us.  He rides a BMW sport bike, and we had a conversation about the great roads in the Chattanooga area.   Rashad told me you can ride 51 weeks out of the year in and around Chattanooga and the way he described the roads, this sounds like a place where I need to spend more time.  From my explorations around this region, I believe him.  I have to get back here.  And when you get out here, you have to try The 405.  Tell Rashad Joe sent you.

From downtown, it was a short ride to the Chickamauga and Chattahoochee National Military Park.   We were lucky.   It was Veteran’s Day, and the National Park Service was giving free guided tours.  I think they do that every day, but seeing this sacred place on this grand holiday (on the 100th Anniversary of the end of World War I) made it even more interesting.  Our guide was another new good buddy, in this case Ranger Chris.

Good buddy Ranger Chris on the Chickamauga battlefield.

Chris led a motor tour to three stops on the Chickamauga battlefield, and he made it come alive for us.  If you’ve never been to Chickamauga, my advice is to put it on your list.  Chickamauga and Gettysburg (fought just a few days apart) marked the turning point of the Civil War.   We thoroughly enjoyed Chris’ presentation and the tour.

One of the best parts of the Chickamauga stop was the visitor’s center.  It has several cannon on display, and a large map showing the battlefield.

Chris’s materials and his Ranger campaign hat. Good stuff at the Chickamauga visitor center.
The business end of one of many cannon on display at the Chickamauga site.

The Chickamauga visitor center also houses one of the best (probably the best) collection of Civil War rifles I’ve ever seen.   It seems a local engineer and gun collector named Claud Fuller had built a collection of some 5,000 firearms and he donated a portion of his collection for permanent display here.   They are magnificent.  This collection, all by itself, justifies a trip to the area.

One of several halls displaying Civil War rifles from the Fuller collection.
Fiddleback maple on a black powder rifle. These are beautiful firearms.
A presentation-grade Spencer. I could have spent all day just looking at these rifles.
Color case hardening on a Remington Hepburn rifle. This is amazing work.
Several Trapdoor Springfields on display. These fire the 45 70 cartridge, one of the all time greats. The second one from the right is an Officer’s Model Trapdoor Springfield. I had never seen one before. I would have joined the Army just to get one of these!

After spending the afternoon at Chickamauga, we had dinner at the 1885 restaurant in Chattanooga’s St. Elmo district.  I saw something on the menu I had never seen before:  Mushrooms and grits.  Hmmm, I wondered.  That sounded interesting.  And wow, was it ever!

Well, kiss my grits! This is before…
…and this is after. Yep, it was that good!

After dinner, our waitress recommended the cheese cake.  Hey, everything else had been amazing, so why not?

Lemon and cream cheesecake. It came with a discount coupon for the local Coronary Care Unit.

My dinner tonight was one of the finest I’ve ever enjoyed.  It was a great way to finish a Chattanooga visit.  I’m up for a summer ride in this area, and I’ll be back.   We’ll be home in California by the time you read this, and we’ll have a supply of Moon Pies for a short while.  Like my good buddy Reuben always says:  What a life!

Less power and heavier than a Harley…

I promised you a few blogs ago that I found something with less power and more weight than a Harley.  As a guy who’s owned a couple of the potato-potato bikes and more than a few dealer-emblazoned t-shirts (and being a firm admirer of The Motor Company), I give myself license to poke fun on occasion.

What might this discovery be, you wonder?

How’s this sound?  It has exactly 1 horsepower, and it weighs 1200 lbs.

Take a look…

A descendant of the original W.K. Kellogg Arabians…

Yep, it’s an Arabian stallion.  At least I think it’s a stallion.  I’m sure of this, though:  It’s an Arabian, and they sure are magnificent.

It seems old Will Kellogg (yep, that Kellogg…think Corn Flakes and Special K) owned all the land currently occupied by Cal Poly Pomona.  He bequeathed the land to California with two caveats (that’s Latin, of which I am discovering myself to be one):  California had to create an Ag College on the Kellogg estate, and the Ag College had to care for Kellog’s Arabians in perpetuity.

What a deal!  The People’s Republik couldn’t say yes fast enough.  That was, I think, back in the ’20s or so, and the Arabians have been running free on the Cal Poly campus ever since.  Along the way, they’ve starred in a bunch of western movies and a few Disney features (the Magic Kingdom is just a few miles down the 57 from the Cal Poly campus, and Hollywood is just a few miles west on the 10).  The best part, though, is that the Arabians are accessible to us, the public.   And they are beautiful.  Magnificent.  Stunning.  You really need to see these wonderful creatures.

One of the 15 or so colts born every year to the Cal Poly Arabians.

Cal Poly has a show every month, and Susie and I went this past weekend.  It was awesome.  Cal Poly students take care of the herd, and it is a sight to see.  The show is open to the public, it’s only an hour long, and it’s grand and inexpensive entertainment.  I get to go free because I’m an Emeritus (I didn’t even know I was a Roman, let alone one with a Latin title).   I told one of the students I was an Emeritus (I guess I was trying to impress her), and she asked if that meant I was an old professor.   It’s something like that, I told her.    Anyway, that title got me in the door for free.  For the rest of you Plebeians, it’s only $3.  Trust me on this:  It’s well worth it.

Good times, folks.

A saddle that would look right at home on any cruiser.

RX3 to RX4 Comparisons: Part 4

The RX3-to-RX4 comparison continues.   We’ll pick up several more areas in this blog.  Note that we’ve added an RX4 page to the ExhaustNotes website, too.  More on that in a bit; for now, on to the comparo!

Starting at the back of both bikes, the RX4 has a subfender behind the rear wheel.  The RX3 does not.   Take a look…

The RX3 rear wheel. Note that there’s no subfender.
The RX4 subfender. This was something CSC could have added to the RX3, but chose not to (wisely, in my opinion)..

When CSC specified what they wanted on the RX3 a few years ago, they opted to leave the subfender off.  I didn’t like the subfender, I thought it was ugly, and I didn’t see a need for it.  I thought leaving it off was a good move.

You might think the RX3 subfender could have been added as an aftermarket accessory.  It can, but it’s not easy.  On the RX3, adding the subfender actually requires a different swingarm, so if you wanted to add a subfender you would have to replace the entire swingarm.  That’s because the swingarm mounting points for the subfender are built into the swingarm (you can see that on the RX4 subfender photo, too).   When CSC was defining the RX3 configuration, the question became why not just specify the swingarm that can accept the subfender, and offer the subfender later as an accessory?  The reason is that because without the subfender, the swingarm looks goofy.  It’s got this big mounting bracket at the rear on the right side, hanging out in space with nothing mounted on it.

Personally, I could do without the subfender on either bike.  It just adds weight and I don’t care for the look.  But that’s my preference.  Your mileage may vary.

Moving back to the front of the bikes, the RX4 incorporates a radiator bottle fill port on the bodywork to the right of the fuel tank.  It’s easily accessible (far more so than the radiator bottle fill port on the RX3, which is tucked under the fairing).   This was a good way to go on the RX4.   You know that if you have ever needed to add fluid on the RX3 it’s not easy to get the radiator bottle.   Score one for the RX4.  I like the RX4 approach better.

The RX4 radiator bottle fill port. It makes it a lot easier to add coolant.

The sidestands (or kickstands) on the two bikes are similar…and in the two photos below, you can see that the two bikes use the same footpegs.   These are good footpegs, I think, because you can remove the rubber inserts if you wish.  I never have done that, but I suppose there are guys out there who think they need to do that.

The RX3 kickstand. I found it easier to reach than the kickstand on the RX4.
The RX4 kickstand. Note the “wing” to make extension easier.

I find it very easy to reach the kickstand on my RX3; on the RX4 it was not as easy for me.  That could just be me being used to the RX3.

Neither the RX3 nor the RX4 have a centerstand as standard equipment.  It’s an option on the RX3 and I imagine it will become an option on the RX4, although it will be little harder for CSC to add a centerstand to the RX4.  On the rear suspension linkage photos (they’re coming up next), you’ll notice that the RX3 has two mounting points that CSC uses for the bike’s optional  centerstand.  When I first saw those underframe mounting points on the RX3 in China, I assumed Zongshen added them because they anticipated adding a centerstand, but that wasn’t the reason.  Zongshen uses the below-the-frame mounting points as an assembly aid during RX3 production as the bike is traveling down the assembly line.

Zongshen also has temporary centerstands (it takes two of these to lift the bike’s rear wheel off the ground) for use if you need to fix a flat tire, and I think CSC sells them if you want to buy a pair.  I have a couple I carry around in my RX3, but (knock wood) I have never used them.  I got a flat on the ride across China, though, and one of the RX3 clubmen we rode with in Beijing had the accessory maintenance centerstands with him.  They work well, and that guy had my flat fixed in no time flat (pardon the pun).

That said, let’s move on to the rear suspension comparison.  Here’s the rear suspension linkage on the RX3.  Note that the RX3 linkage is constructed of stamped metal pieces.  This is the setup that CSC changes when you buy an RX3 lowering kit.

The RX3 rear suspension linkage. Note the stamped metal parts, the rear damping adjustment point, and the centerstand mounting points below the bike.

The RX4 rear suspension linkage is substantially beefier, and it uses cast metal bits instead of stampings.  It’s one of the reasons why the RX4 is heavier than the RX3.

The RX4 rear suspension linkage. I don’t think the RX4’s rear damping adjuster is as easily accessible as is the RX3’s.

The shift levers and the rear brake levers are different on the two bikes.  The RX3 uses cast parts; the RX4 uses what appear to be stamped weldments.  The photos below show the shift and brake levers on the RX3.  Note that they are cast bits, they are painted silver, and they have a nice look to them.

The RX3 rear brake lever. It’s a nicely-finished casting.
The RX3 shift lever, another nicely-finished casting.

On the RX4, the shift and brake levers appear to be stamped weldments painted black to match the frame.  In my opinion, they are not as nice looking as the ones on the RX3, but I suppose you could make the argument that if you bend the RX4 parts in a spill, the levers on the RX4 will be easier to fix than would be the RX3’s castings.

The RX4 rear brake lever. It’s fabricated from a stamped weldment.
The RX4 shift lever.

The RX4 I’ve been riding has two ignition keys.  One looks like a regular ignition key, and it fits the ignition lock, the standard luggage, the gas cap, and the rear seat release (just like the RX3).  The other key that comes with the RX4 has a smaller black plastic handle.  I don’t know why the two RX4 keys are different.  I had a similar two-key arrangement when I owned a 1997 Suzuki TL1000S.  The regular key (with the larger black plastic handle) was for normal use, and the one with the smaller black handle was in case the bike had an electrical issue and the fuel injection didn’t work correctly.  It was designed to put the TL into a “limp home” mode.   I never had to use it.  I don’t think that’s what’s going on here, but I don’t know for sure.  It’s one of those things I’ll have to ask the wizards at Zongshen about.

The black plastic handle on the RX4 key is larger than is the one on the RX3 key.  Here’s a photo showing the RX4 key and the RX3 key…

The RX4 (on the left) and RX3 (on the right) ignition keys.

The rear brake master cylinders on the two motorcycles are also different. Here’s what they look like…

The RX3 rear brake master cylinder.
The RX4 rear brake master cylinder.

I like the rear master cylinder on the RX4 much more than the one on the RX3.  You can just unscrew the RX4 cap to get to the reservoir, while on the RX3 rear master cylinder you need a Phillips head screwdriver and you have to remove two screws.  The more-complicated RX3 design has a story behind it.  Originally, the RX3 rear master cylinder was a much smaller affair.   One of the CSC consultants advised that it was too small for its location near the exhaust pipe (the concern was that the master cylinder would be heated by the exhaust pipe and this could adversely affect brake performance).   It never was an issue when riding the preproduction RX3 motorcycles or the RX3s we rode across China (both had the original design master cylinder), but I guess if you pay consultants you take their advice.  On the RX3 I would have just gone with a conventional master cylinder like the one on the RX4 (which is similar to master cylinders on just about every other motorcycle on the planet).   But Zongshen wanted to design a custom rear master cylinder for the RX3, and that’s how that strange-looking tapered affair on the RX3 came to be.   In my opinion, the one on the RX4 is a better approach.

That’s enough for this blog, folks.   Again, CSC asked me to mention that they are taking deposits now on the RX4, and if you want to get on board, here’s the link to do so.

Okay, okay….just two more things.

I’ve got a couple more blogs coming up on the RX4, including one I’m polishing now comparing the CSC RX4 to the Kawasaki KLR 650 (as my good buddy Chris suggested; it’s one that will probably draw lots of comments).   You’ll want to keep an eye on the ExNotes site for the latest tech info on the RX4.  And as promised, here’s the ExhaustNotes RX4 index page!   Click on it and you’ll find an easy way to get to all of our RX4 articles.

And as mentioned before, please consider adding your email address for an auto-notify every time we post a blog (there’s a place do to that near the top of this page on the right). Do that and you’ll be eligible for our newest contest.  On a quarterly basis, provided we get at least another 200 folks sign up each quarter, we’ll give away a copy of either Moto Colombia, Riding China, or 5000 Miles at 8000 RPM to a name drawn at random from our email database.  The first winner will be announced sometime around Christmas this year.   Please encourage your friends to sign up, too.   If you’re already on the list, you’re eligible for the first drawing.   We don’t give or sell our email list to anyone, so your address is safe with us.

Back in the Day: Another Bell helmet

Like everyone else who read the “Back in the Day” Bell Star piece, I greatly enjoyed Gresh’s blog.  I never owned a Star, but I bought one of the modern Bell helmets Joe referenced about 10 years ago from my good buddy Mike over at NoHo Scooters in Hollywood.  It was a lightweight, inexpensive full-face deal with artwork that made it an instant “I want” item.   The Boss was with me and she gave the nod, and Mike gave me a good price, so I bought it.

Not politically correct. But cool. I liked it. Bombs Away!

The helmet had a World War II aviation motif. It’s not politically correct, so if you’re going to get your shorts in a knot over the artwork, my advice is this:  You’re young.  Go to your safe space and take a nap.  You’ll probably get over it.

The military theme worked perfectly, I think, with a CSC motorcycle Steve Seidner (CSC’s CEO) built.  He called it “The Sarge” and it was his personal bike.  I liked both the motorcycle and the helmet so much that as soon as Steve’s bike came together (and he wasn’t around) I raced off to a spot I knew would make for a good photo…

The Sarge and my Bell helmet.  The motif worked.  For me, anyway.  Cue in the music from “Off We Go, Into the Wild Blue Yonder…”

I wore that helmet all the way down to Cabo and back on the CSC 150 Baja run.  It was a nice hat.  I really liked it.  It made me taller, thinner, and faster.  Better looking, too, if I kept the visor down.

The Bell on my CSC 150. I called my bike the Baja Blaster.

They say you are supposed to replace a motorcycle helmet every three years (“they” are the guys who make helmets, of course).  I don’t know if that’s really necessary, but it’s what I do.  After three years the insides of my helmets get pretty funky, and in my case aromatic reasons drive the need for a new lid.

But the three-year rule wasn’t what ended my relationship with the Bell you see here.  It was a different reason:  The outside surface got tacky.  Not in the good taste or politically correct sense (if that’s what you’re thinking), but tacky in an adhesive sense.   It got sticky to the touch, like flypaper.  I think it was because the adhesive bonding the wrap (the thin layer of artwork) to the helmet’s shell seeped through to the outside.  Whatever.  It would stick to my hands when I picked it up and I don’t like a clingy thingy.  A Bell guy told me he knew of the problem and it had been fixed, but they no longer offered the helmet I had come to love.

I sure wish Bell still made that helmet.  I would buy a new one and it’s what I’d be wearing today.

A Tale of Two No. 1s

…and those two would be Ruger No. 1 single-shot rifles, arguably the classiest rifles on the planet. I smile when I hear folks talking about high-capacity magazines and black assault rifles. One shot, folks. That’s all it takes if you know what you’re doing. When you see someone hunting with a single-shot rifle, you know that rifleman knows how true sportsmen play the game.

My Ruger No. 1 in 7mm Remington Magnum. It has a period-correct Redfield Widefield 3×9 scope, and magnificent walnut.

Ruger introduced these rifles in the late 1960s, and they are still in production.  In 1976, like I mentioned in an earlier blog, Ruger stamped every firearm they manufactured with a “Made in the 200th Year of American Liberty” inscription.  I bought my first one back then, and I’ve had a soft spot for the Ruger single-shot rifles ever since.   Both of the rifles you see in this blog (mine and good buddy Greg’s) are 200th Year Rugers.

Several years ago, I found a clean, used No. 1 in 7mm Remington Magnum.  I had never owned a rifle in that caliber before, and I always wanted one.  I bought it and I kept it for several years without shooting it, and then good buddy Marty gave me a stash of new-old-stock 7mm Mag brass.   A few years before that, good buddy Jim had given me a set of 7mm RCBS dies.  With the addition of Marty’s brass, all of a sudden I was in the 7mm game.  I had the rifle, the dies, and the brass.

Yours truly, pursuing the secret sauce.

I loaded some 7mm ammo last summer and took the No. 1 to the range.  I was disappointed but not surprised that it did not group well with that first load.  It takes a while to find the right load, and the load I tried that day was only the first of many.  It’s okay.  These things take time.

Good buddy Greg’s No. 1, also in 7mm Remington Mag, and also a 200th Year Ruger. You just don’t see walnut like this on rifles today. The wood on Greg’s rifle is nicer than mine.

Good buddy Greg (I have a lot of good buddies) saw my No. 1 and he decided that his life would not be complete unless he owned one, too.   He found one with even nicer wood than mine, and it, too, was a 200th Year Ruger.  Yowwee, our load development time was cut in half!   Greg was chasing the proverbial secret sauce and so was I.

Greg, showing us how it’s done.

So about this load development business:  Every rifle is an entity unto itself.  I’m not certain what that phrase means, but I like the way it rolls off the keyboard.  I think it means every rifle is different, and if that’s the case, it sure is an accurate statement.   What you do when you reload ammo (what most of us do, anyway) is look for a load that delivers superior accuracy.  The gold standard is getting a rifle to consistently shoot three shots into an inch at 100 yards.   Most of the time, factory ammo won’t do that.  You’ve got to experiment with different combinations of bullet weight, bullet design, bullet manufacturer, bullet seating depth, crimp, powder type, powder charge, primer type, and brass case manufacturer, and if you get lucky, you might find that magic MOA load (minute of angle, or one inch at 100 yards) before you run out of money for reloading components.  It is amazing how much difference finding the right load can make.  It can take a rifle from 4-inch groups to the magic MOA.

In the case of my 7mm No .1, I’m getting pretty close.  I tested a load this past weekend that averaged 1.080 inches at 100 yards.  It shot one group into 0.656 inches…

Getting there…that old No. 1 sure likes this load!

I think I’m just about there.  This weekend I was using old brass with old primers, it had not been trimmed to assure consistent length, and I did not weigh each powder charge individually (I just let the powder dispenser add the same volume with each throw).  Those are all tricks we use to improve accuracy.  If I resize and trim the brass, use new primers, and individually weigh each charge, things should get even better.  That’s the next step.  Then I’ll start experimenting with bullet seating depths.  I’m thinking I might get this nearly-50-year-old rifle to shoot in a half-inch at 100 yards.  That would be cool.

Like I said, it took awhile to get here.  Here are the loads I tried before I shot that group above….

The best and most consistently accurate load is the second one from the bottom. The next steps will be to refine this load.

Want to see all of our gun stories?   Just click here!

A quick update…

Wow, we sure are generating a lot of interest, a lot of hits, and a lot of comments here on the ExNotes website and blog.   We appreciate the comments, folks, so please keep them coming.

I need more form-generated junk emails like I need a summer cold, and I’m willing to bet you feel the same way.   That said, please consider adding your email address to the list of folks we auto-notify every time we post a new blog.   We try to post every day, and I know many of you probably just check in when it’s convenient.   Getting on our email list, though, will add one advantage you won’t otherwise get.   On a quarterly basis, provided we get at least another 200 folks sign up each quarter, we’ll give away a copy of either Moto Colombia, Riding China, or 5000 Miles at 8000 RPM to a name drawn at random from our email database.  The first winner will be announced sometime around Christmas this year.   Please encourage your friends to sign up, too.   If you’re already on the list, you’re eligible for the first drawing.   We don’t give or sell our email list to anyone, so your address is safe with us.

More news:  The next Long Beach Moto Show is just around the corner.  I’ll be there, and I’ll have lots of photos of Bold New Graphics from the Big 4, and interesting new models from everyone else.  And yeah, I’ll get a few photos of the young ladies in the Ducati, Harley, and Indian booths, too.

Make sure you check the newsstands for the latest offering from Motorcycle Classics magazine.  It’s titled Tales from the Road, and it’s a dynamite collection of great travel stories that MC, one of the greatest motorcycle magazines ever, has run in the past. Two of my stories are in there, and I know you’ll enjoy them.

We’re going to be adding a couple more index pages to the ExhaustNotes site, as we have already done for the Resurrections, Baja, Dream Bikes, YouTube, Tales of the Gun, and Books pages.   We’re thinking the next index pages will be on e-bikes, and another one for the CSC RX4.  Those areas are getting a lot of attention and a lot of hits on the blogs we’ve done, and the idea is to make it easy for you to find all of our blogs on a particular topic.  And speaking of resurrections, Joe Gresh tells me we may not be too far from hearing Zed, the star of the Resurrections page, fire up.   I’m excited about that.   Joe’s work on that barn-find Kawasaki Z1 sure is interesting.  And there’s more good stuff in the works…a feature on an old Ruger rifle in 7mm Remington Magnum for which I finally found the secret sauce (a load delivering less than 1-inch groups at 100 yards), and a special feature on something that weighs more and has less power than a full-dress potato-potato-potato cruiser (I know you didn’t think that was possible, but I have the photos to prove it).

It’s getting dark what with the time change being in effect, and my keepers are telling me I have to take my pills and get ready for bed.  Stay tuned; there’s more good stuff coming your way.

Join our Facebook ExNotes page!

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

Help us keep the lights on:

Don’t forget: Visit our advertisers!

RX3 to RX4 Comparisons: Part 3

The RX4 on the road. I wanted to get a shot at the truck scale, but conditions were not conducive to good photography.

The next two blogs (this one and the next) address more differences between the RX3 and the RX4, including the weight, the dash and instrumentation, the rear fender, tire sizes, the radiators, the radiator bottle fill port, the kickstand, the rear brake and gearshift levers, the rear wheel adjust mechanism, the swingarm, and the engine mounts.   This blog will focus on the bike’s weight and the two bikes’ highway performance.  I’ll sweep up the other differences mentioned above in the next blog.

Let’s talk about the 450-lb gorilla in the room first, and that’s the RX4’s weight.  The RX4 is a heavier bike than the RX3, and I guess the question is:  Is this a good thing or a bad thing?  It’s all a question of perspective and intended purpose.

For starters, I still don’t have an accurate, measured weight on either bike.   That’s a shame on me, although I will tell you that I tried.

My plan was to get the RX4 weighed first, and then return with my RX3 to do the same.  I took the RX4 to our local certified truck scale, but the bike was too light to register on the scale and a loudspeaker-borne voice basically told me to get out of Dodge.  It was a scary experience.  There’s a monstrous Petro truck stop on the I-10 freeway about 10 miles from where I live, and I thought it would be a simple matter to roll the RX4 onto the scales and come back with The Number.  That was my plan, anyway.

I entered the super-busy truck stop through an area teaming with idling 18-wheelers, engines barking and belching, crammed together weighting (or is that waiting?) to funnel onto the Petro parking lot scales.  On my RX4, I was acutely aware of three things:  The guys driving these monsters couldn’t see me, the engine noise and fumes were overwhelming, and the RX4’s fat rear end (those Tourfella bags are wider than the bike’s handlebars) made maneuvering through the 18-wheeler maze a dicey proposition.  The pucker factor was elevated, folks.  Big time.

I made it through, though, and I was finally on a scale with a platform as long as, well, an 18-wheeler.  There was this elevated control house sort of thing next to the platform.  It wasn’t clear to me what was supposed to happen next, as I couldn’t see anybody running the operation, and there was no digital or analog readout telling me the weight.  I stopped the bike and dismounted, and I walked toward the elevated control house when an  electronic voice from the Heavens boomed.  It was way louder then the idling diesel engines surrounding me and I could tell:  It was pissed.  At me.

“Can I help you?”  It didn’t come across as a request that implied an intent to be helpful.  It implied anger.  Seething anger.  Directed at me.  As a two-wheeler, I was but one-ninth the vehicle I was supposed to be.

Well, yeah, I want to weigh my bike.  I mean, why else would a normal person be here?

“You’re setting off my alarms.”

Sorry about that, dude.   What alarms?

“You’re too light and my alarms are going off!”

I want to weigh my bike (sometimes repetition helps, I thought).

“You need to get out!”  There it was.  No more implying or inferring.  It was out in the open now.  It was as if I was wearing a MAGA hat on the Harvard campus.  I was not welcome.

Okay, I can take a hint.  Hell, a weight is just a number anyway.

Which brings me to my next point.   What’s in a number?

Whatever the answer is to that question, I can tell you these three things: One, the RX4’s official number from Zongshen is 450 lbs.  As I said before, I don’t know if that is the right number, but I suspect it is not.  Two, the RX4 is substantially heavier than my RX3, and weigh heavier (or should that be way heavier?) than my TT250.  It feels it, and it feels to me like the weight rides higher.  Three, the RX4 is a substantially better road bike than the RX3, and the bike’s added heft and longer wheelbase (along with that marvelous 450cc motor) probably plays a role here.  Anyway, the bottom line here is this:   There’s no Joe Berk official weight yet (read that to mean a weight actually measured on a scale).

Like I said, I can feel the difference in heft between the RX3 and the RX4.  It’s enough to make me wonder:  Am I man enough to take this puppy off road?   I suppose I could be.  I know there are a few guys who actually take GS 1200 BMWs off road, and those things have seat heights and weights that require altimeters and maybe truck scales to measure.   But would I want to go off road?

The short answer, I think, is this:  If your main objective is off-road riding, there are other choices.   I’d go for my TT250 or something else.  If you are primarily a road rider, though, with the occasional off-road excursion, then the RX4 is a good choice.   In my opinion, the RX3 would be better off road, but that’s just what I said it was:  My opinion.  Your mileage may vary, as they say.  I was thinking about the stretch to the Sierra San Francisco cave paintings in Baja, and to me, I’m right at the limits of what I feel comfortable with on that gnarly stretch on my RX3.   It’s heavily rutted, there are big boulders, and it’s a challenge.  But then, I freely admit I’m not a dirt biker.  I know there are guys reading this who are thinking they would have no problem taking the RX4 off road.  If you’re one of them, you’re probably right.

If you are primarily a road rider, though, the RX4 is the better choice.  I put about 100 miles on the RX4 on freeways and surface streets here in So Cal, and I can tell you this:  The RX4 is clearly a more capable road machine than is the RX3, especially at freeway speeds.   I didn’t get a long enough stretch to measure the RX4’s top speed, but I can tell you there were spurts where I cranked it up to an indicated 99 mph and there was still more left.  That’s indicated (not actual) top speed, and the speedo is 10-12% optimistic.  Zongshen claims a top speed of 97.5 mph for the RX4, and that’s probably accurate.  The RX4 is a bike that can cruise comfortably at 80+ mph all day long; the RX3 has essentially run out of steam at that speed. The RX4 makes running with the big dogs seem easy.  It is rock steady at high speeds, and it’s comfortable.  It feels secure.

That magnificent 450cc motor…

In many ways, the RX4 reminded me more of my Triumph Tiger than it reminded me of my RX3.   The Triumph was essentially a touring machine/sports bike styled like an off-roader with saddlebags. The Triumph was heavy and I only took it off road once on purpose (and that was enough).  I rode the Triumph off road a few more times when I had to in Mexico, but it really was not an off-road bike.  I know there are guys who ride the big Tigers off road, but it’s not where the bike wants to be.   It wants to be headed to the next state, or maybe the next international border.  That’s what the RX4 wants, too.

My Triumph Tiger. In many ways, the RX4 is quite similar to the Tiger. It was a stellar long-distance touring machine; I think the RX4 is, too.

I’ll make a prediction:  Within the next two years, someone (perhaps several someones) will do the Iron Butt on the RX4.  I don’t mean a single 1000-mile Baby Butt day (good buddy Rob Morel has already done that on his RX3).  I’m talking the full-tilt boogie here:  The 11,000-mile, 11-day Iron Butt.  I think that’s going to happen.  And I think the RX4 is the bike that will do it.

I was talking to Steve Seidner about this a day or two ago, and he asked me to mention to you that CSC is taking deposits now on the RX4 (here’s a link to get to their page for placing your deposit).  CSC will sell a lot of RX4s.  The bike is that good.