Evolution – how far has the TE come in 20 years?

[Russ]

I was reading a few of my old dirt bike magazines and came across this test of the 1991 TE610. Amazing to see its dry weight of 116kgs, compared with the 630s Australian dry weight of 149kgs. A mate of mine had one and said it was a ball tearing, wheelie monster…

Although I accept the 1991 model was more enduro spec, I find it hard to believe that today’s bike needs to be 33kgs heavier. It’s one of the few weaknesses of the bike, i.e. when the going gets really tough it’s just too heavy.

I’ve often wondered why there needs to be such a huge weight gap between the big bore 4 stroke enduro bikes (around 113kgs) and the 630 class, and whether it’s simply because the manufacturers haven’t dedicated the resources to build a more lightweight one. This is probably because it is such a niche, low volume, class, but I would have thought if they could build a 630 type bike weighing 130kgs or so it’d be a cracker. Hell, my second bike was a Honda XL500S, circa 1980 model, and for all its steel tank & road going gear its dry weight was only 139kgs, 30 years ago.

Each model seems to have gotten progressively heavier and I fear what the mooted BMW-engined replacement might weigh. Progress? Not to me.

 

[ray_ray]

Be careful or you might start thinking the same way about ~most all dirt bikes and not just this one specific model ....

 

[ContraHusky]

Once an enduro is beefed up for highway miles, cargo, longer service intervals....it weighs more. It's true across all manufacturers. From the WR250R to the 690 Enduro...all those bikes have stablemates that are a lot lighter.

A road-going enduro -- or true dual sport -- is a compromise bike. Comfortable road miles mean a bike at ~400 pounds. Offroad performance peaks out around 270 pounds. Dual sports are in between...always a compromise.

There are street-legal enduros that weight what one should. I had a KTM 525EXC. It was great on trails, but just really not fun for 2-3 hours at a time on highways. Then, you have to change the oil after every other ride...

 

[Norman Foley]

Apples and oranges..... more correct to compare the '91 TE610 to a '10 TE510 or '11 TE511. Husky should have kept the "E" suffix on the TE610 DS, as to avoid this confusion. I have an '03 TE610E electric start Dual Sport and have a '93 TE350(US WXE) and had an '01 TE400 (TE610 enduro model little brothers). If you look at the bottom end of the TE single cam enduros models, you'll see a 1980's Husky 2 stroke bottom end. That is where most of the weight savings are and no electric start and battery. My '93 doesn't even have a mechanical oil pump! The bottom end on the 610/630 is the old Cagiva 350/500 DS model. It is pretty robust, with two oil pumps, paper filter and twice the oil capacity.

On the old 610.... in '92 it lost weight compared to the '91, by switching to an aluminum subframe, Showa suspension and Nissin brakes. On the 610 DS.... It lost weight in '06 compared to the '98-'04 TE610E, but gained it back with the 630.

 

[mnb]

It lost weight in '06 compared to the '98-'04 TE610E, but gained it back with the 630.

gained it back... and then some. It needs to go on a diet.

 

[Russ]

I appreciate the 1991 TE was more of enduro bike spec, but still don't accept the current one needs to weigh 33kgs more, particularly given there is 20 years of development opportunity in between.

I believe this is the result of this market segment being pretty much neglected in terms of real development, and the comment above that "The bottom end on the 610/630 is the old Cagiva 350/500 DS model" supports this view. Most development tends to naturally go into the higher volume, higher profile and more competive markets such as the motocross, enduro bikes and road race bikes. I beleive that if a manufacturer really made it a priority they could design a bike like the TE630 but weighing 20kgs less. What I can't understand, for example, is how Suzuki can make put the GSXR600 on the road with a dry weight of 154kgs, dropping a whopping 9kgs in one model upgrade. This is a metal tanked, big braked, fully faired inline 4 rocketship. Why does my single cylinder, plastic tanked, small braked TE weigh only 5kgs less?

Extract from 2011 test of 2011 SUZUKI GSX-R600
"Both GSX-Rs have lost plenty of weight, with the 600 leading the way by shedding a massive 9kg, with most of the heavy lifting done by the cast alloy-aluminium twin-spar frame (down 1.35kg), exhaust (down 1.7kg), the Showa Big Piston Fork (down 890 grams) and external fittings and bracketing (down 3.4kg). With the purge, the GSX-R600’s dry weight should sit around the 154kg mark."

I appreciate the cost of developing a new bike is huge, and that this market segment is relatively small, but if a manufacturer got it right they could potentiually reap the benefits for years. Look what Suzuki has done with their DRZ range - it's an outdated but bulletproof design that has barely changed in 12 years, but it's still amongst the top sellers in Australia because Suzuki covered their up-front costs long ago and now just keeps churning them out at a cheap price.

I just don't like the way Husky is developing this bike - seemlying getting a little porkier with each model whereas common sense tells me it should get lighter. Now there's significant rumour of the BMW 650 engine going into its replacement, so I can't imaging that is good news from a weight perspective.

Anyway, I still love my bike, it's an absolute blast. I just wish it was a little lighter so I could push it a little further in the bush.