2008 690's SMC, Duke and Concept 690 Stunt

[FlangMasterJ]

They've done well.

[deanohit]

Now that stunt looks awesome, better than the 2 blow which were my favorite concept pics. I do like the Duke, but that big exaust under the engine looks out of place. Now if they made them like this, I'd be off down the road to see the bank man.

[FlangMasterJ]

Also the 690 Enduro.

[NZsarge]

Yeah that Stunt 690 is sweet! The Duke ai'nt too bad either but the SUPER Duke would still be the KTM for me.........unless there were to be a ..... SUPER Stunt!!!!

[clint640]

They all look tasty. The Duke would be insane quick on a twisty road - supermoto style ergos but with a real low CoG.

The new 690 version of my 640 Enduro looks good; lighter, gruntier, slimmer, but still with the decent tank size, reasonable seat height, cush hub, big brakes etc that most of the other lightweight big bore thumpers lack. Funny that they've given it less suspension travel, but I've hardly ever bottomed out the 640 so maybe that's not too much of an issue.

Cheers
Clint

[idleidolidyll]

The 640 Husky supermoto is a whole lot better and cheaper too.

65BHP, 112kg beats the KTM hands down AND the Husky has a much smoother engine with balance shafts!

[FlangMasterJ]

The 640 Husky supermoto is a whole lot better and cheaper too.

65BHP, 112kg beats the KTM hands down AND the Husky has a much smoother engine with balance shafts!

640 Husky? Don't you mean 610?

It probably is smoother but no way near as reliable as the LC4 engine.

[idleidolidyll]

Yes, it was in error but no, not the 610. I had a brain fade and should have typed Husaberg 650C. 65BHP and 110kg. At under $13k it's way cheaper than the KTM too.

As for the LC4, I've had one (03 SM), I'd still go Hussy next time I bought a single; it's about the ride and with nearly 40kg lopped off compared to the 690SM, the Hussy would eat it both on grunt and in handling.

[James Deuce]

The 690 is waaaaaaaay smoother than the 640.

[idleidolidyll]

yep but the 650 Hussy is smoother still and so much lighter!

I don't give a damn about service intervals. if i was to compare bikes based on 'practicality' I wouldn't even consider a supermoto single. My desire is for punch out of corners and handling. Having had the 640SM for a few years I know it is more than capable of kicking arse and the Hussy is 2 steps up from that.

comparison? put a 20 year old Japanese chick on the back of the Hussy and go for a ride; it'll be like the 690 one up........................

My 950 Supermoto is a nice thing but I yearn for the lightness of a single again.........I'd keep the big un though, gotta sit the missus somewhere

[FlangMasterJ]

THe Husaberg 650 is an insanely fun bike.

I rode the 2007 690SM last weekend and it handled just as well as the Husaberg. It's a lot more comfortable to.

Off the line the 650 Husaberg will leave it for dead.

If I had the bunce I would definately opt for a high performance single such as the Husaberg or Husky.

But my pick would definatley be either the 690SMC or Duke. For their reliabilty and KTM's customer support.

[clint640]

The 640 Husky supermoto is a whole lot better and cheaper too.


The Husaberg is a cool rig & 'a whole lot better' race bike no doubt, but the point of the 690 SMC, like the 640 Supermoto before it, is to package near racebike performance with a few nods to practicality. For many people the nicer seat, bigger tank, longer service intervals & better reliabilty make the LC4 'a whole lot better' overall. That's why I bought a 640 Enduro & not an FE650.

...& the new 690 SMC above at 138kg is only about 26kg heavier than the FS650, a lot in race bike terms I know, but compare it to something like a 180kg XT660X Yamaha or 190kg BMW 650CS & it's a featherweight in the world of street supermotos, but packing far more punch.

Cheers
Clint

[idleidolidyll]

The Husaberg is a cool rig & 'a whole lot better' race bike no doubt, but the point of the 690 SMC, like the 640 Supermoto before it, is to package near racebike performance with a few nods to practicality. For many people the nicer seat, bigger tank, longer service intervals & better reliabilty make the LC4 'a whole lot better' overall. That's why I bought a 640 Enduro & not an FE650.

...& the new 690 SMC above at 138kg is only about 26kg heavier than the FS650, a lot in race bike terms I know, but compare it to something like a 180kg XT660X Yamaha or 190kg BMW 650CS & it's a featherweight in the world of street supermotos, but packing far more punch.

Cheers
Clint

Actually, KTM list the standard 690SM at 152kg. To get the light weight version you have to move up a spec or two. The Supermoto R is the same weight and it's only when you get to the SMC version that you shed some kilos at 139.5kg.

Bang for buck then, the Husaberg wins hands down at under $13k, 65bhp and 110kg while the standard KTM 690SM is $16k, 65BHP, 152kg. I don't see a price for the SMC but I'd expect an extra 3 or 4 grand on top of the base model.

But yes, either would be better than the porky jappas.

BTW: When I worked at AMPS we dynoed a standard 640 and saw 44BHP at the rear wheel. The spec quoted something like 55. I have to wonder what the actual RWHP is for both/all these bikes.

[Ewan Oozarmy]

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/mcn/2007/October/october1-7/oct0207ktmstuntprototype/?R=EPI-95070

[rogson]

I like the 690 enduro and SMC. I'm thinking one bike with two sets of wheels.
However, I am concerned about the lack of frame rails under the engine for the dirt duty. I'm not sure a bash-plate will be robust enough.
I'll reserve judgement though until I see/inspect one in the flesh.

[blueblade]

BTW: When I worked at AMPS we dynoed a standard 640 and saw 44BHP at the rear wheel. The spec quoted something like 55. I have to wonder what the actual RWHP is for both/all these bikes.[/QUOTE]

Ive got the 07 690 Supermoto. Replaced the very heavy standard twin can exhaust system with a single Titanium Acrapovic. Probably saved about 8kg in weight. Had it dynoed at AMPs and came up with 57 rwhp. It is considerably more powerful than standard.

[idleidolidyll]

BTW: When I worked at AMPS we dynoed a standard 640 and saw 44BHP at the rear wheel. The spec quoted something like 55. I have to wonder what the actual RWHP is for both/all these bikes.

Ive got the 07 690 Supermoto. Replaced the very heavy standard twin can exhaust system with a single Titanium Acrapovic. Probably saved about 8kg in weight. Had it dynoed at AMPs and came up with 57 rwhp. It is considerably more powerful than standard.[/quote]

interesting. after some airbox work, a ti akra system and a mild road camshaft, my 03 640SM was dynoed at AMPS and had 55RWHP.

the cam didn't actually make much more power (1HP I think it was) but it did push the power up the rev range a bit and gave a more road oriented spread of power.

Bruce complained that it didn't wheely as well as a standard one and he was probably right; it wasn't set up for wheelies.

BTW: I recently swapped the catalytic purifiers on my 950 for the ti akras Patrick included in the deal. The difference was 12-14kg! Better still, that weight lopped off was from up high and I can feel the better handling (and power).

[blueblade]

No problems with wheelies on the 690. It has brilliant low and mid range power but runs out of breath and revs up top. Can wheelie off the throttle in second gear after a bit of practice but will flip over backwards with very little provocation in first gear. Ive gone down one tooth on front sprocket but top end is still around 185 kph and will cruise all day at 140

[clint640]

Actually, KTM list the standard 690SM at 152kg.

Um, yeah, that's why I said 690SMC



BTW: When I worked at AMPS we dynoed a standard 640 and saw 44BHP at the rear wheel. The spec quoted something like 55. I have to wonder what the actual RWHP is for both/all these bikes.

IIRC the spec for the motor was 49 or 53hp, so 44 at the wheel would be reasonable. It's only 2nd hand info but I heard that a euro mag tested the 690SM (claimed 63hp) & got 65hp. Dynos vary anyway, I tend to treat the numbers as +/- 5hp.

Cheers
Clint

[idleidolidyll]

"It has brilliant low and mid range power but runs out of breath and revs up top."

that's why I put the road cam in mine. I rode exclusively with big bore sport bikes.

on the 950 i've gone down 1 tooth on the front sprocket and it's still overgeared. In top gear it's only about 4kph faster than 5th. I've oredered a 43t rear to see what happens.
more easily launching the front wheel will be part of the fun.

[idleidolidyll]

Um, yeah, that's why I said 690SMC

you did indeed but that's also why i noted the whole range. Comparing a $12800 Husaberg with a $20k KTM is apples and pears.

add $5-$7k worth of goodies to the Husaberg and imagine what it could be.............i'm frothing at the mouth even thinking of it

[Ewan Oozarmy]

[QUOTE=idleidolidyll;1230664on the 950 i've gone down 1 tooth on the front sprocket and it's still overgeared. In top gear it's only about 4kph faster than 5th. I've oredered a 43t rear to see what happens.
more easily launching the front wheel will be part of the fun.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I've got the 16T front sprocket on mine too - miles better - definitely should be standard on these. I think it is standard on the Superduke now.

Will you need a longer chain after fitting the 43T rear? I've had the jetting manually adjusted post Akras but it still feels a bit lean at times. Would you recommend AMPS dyno?

[DMNTD]

...I think it is standard on the Superduke now.

I had to go 16t front sprocket on my '05 SD but my '07 SD-R and I believe the "standard" SD have a re-worked gearbox so now there's no need to swap out the sprocket.
Vast improvement and no issues powering it up! :niceone:

[idleidolidyll]

Yeah, I've got the 16T front sprocket on mine too - miles better - definitely should be standard on these. I think it is standard on the Superduke now.

Will you need a longer chain after fitting the 43T rear? I've had the jetting manually adjusted post Akras but it still feels a bit lean at times. Would you recommend AMPS dyno?

I'd certainly recommend Gavin at AMPS. He's honest and conscientious.

I'm not sure if I'll need a new chain, I have some adjustment left and will cross that bridge when i get to it.
I had Stephen Briggs at Triple X Moto do the jetting for me. He didn't have a dyno but had a barrel of experience. That said, I will dyno it some time to get it perfect.
It's not about the HP number though, it's about getting the fuel/air ratio right throughout the rev range.

[warewolf]

the new 690 SMC above at 138kg is only about 26kg heavier than the FS650, a lot in race bike terms I knowAnd let's not forget that KTM only ever quote half-dry weights. So we need to know what units Husqvarna and Husaberg are using. (both Husky and 'Berg quote dry weights on the web)

Jap lovers are so used to seeing fudged dry weights they erroneously treat KTM numbers as dry and lies... measured my 640 Adventure the other day using the bathroom scales. KTM quote 158kg half-dry, I came up with 158.03kg!!

[idleidolidyll]

fair comment.

from what I have read, KTM quote weights as ready to ride with 1 litre of fuel in the tank. That's something BMW also do and I understand it's a non binding Euro 'standard'.

The japs lie through their teeth (i have read that they 'calculate' dry weight rather than actually weighing bikes and it's done completely dry: no way to ride those bikes. The POMES recently weighed a CBR600 'wet' as per the Euro 'standard' and got 188kg. I think the stated dry weight for the 06 was about 160kg.)

A Triumph insider advised me that they too go to great lengths to brag about unrealistic weights.

Having owned a 640 and thrown a leg over the Husaberg, i can confirm that the Hussie 'feels' considerably lighter than the KTM.

If you want a direct comparo; go to Triple X Moto in East Tamaki and talk to Stephen Briggs. He has both bikes sitting side by side (KTM690SM and Husaberg)

[idleidolidyll]

My 950SM is quoted as 192kg by KTM. I've taken off the porky mufflers and put on the ti Akra cans. This whacks off the best part of 12+kg so I reckon it's realistic weight is about 180kg ready to ride.

That in line fours were always listed as some 25+kg lighter than Euro twins always puzzled me until I understood the lies they tell.

[Ewan Oozarmy]

Yeah - I recently read an article in a UK bike mag testing the KTM 950Sm and the Ducati Hypermotard back to back. The manufacturers quoted weights showed the KTM as being heavier but when the magazine testers actually weighed both bikes "wet" the Duc was considereably heavier.

[warewolf]

from what I have read, KTM quote weights as ready to ride with 1 litre of fuel in the tank.My understanding was empty fuel tank, never seen the 1L quoted. Where'd you see that?


That's something BMW also do and I understand it's a non binding Euro 'standard'.Not AFAIK BMW don't - BMW quote full wet weight, that is with a full tank. So there are three different measurements when comparing KTM, BMW and ROW. And again you often see jap lovers pointing to the quoted BMW weight and decrying them as being seriously porky. (They may be, but quote me accurate numbers not ignorant horseshit!)


A Triumph insider advised me that they too go to great lengths to brag about unrealistic weights.To the point that the last year or two of the carbed Tiger 900, they bumped up the quoted weight!! so that when they introduced the new 885i they could quote 'reduced weight' which was actually more than the originally-quoted 900 weight! :Playnice:


Having owned a 640 and thrown a leg over the Husaberg, i can confirm that the Hussie 'feels' considerably lighter than the KTM.Which is what it's all about, unless you are racing, or until you have to pick the fucker up for the nth time.:buggerd:

[warewolf]

A Triumph insider advised me that they too go to great lengths to brag about unrealistic weights.Oh, and the Trophy is next for the moment of truth on the bathroom scales.

- Staintunes
+ Givi three-box rack

Be interesting to see just how heavy it is.

Every time I get on it, particularly if I've been riding the 640 Adventure for a while, it feels HEAVY, takes more effort to tip it on its side and also takes continued effort to hold it in the turns. Accelerates a bit harder, given it makes 3 times the power...

[idleidolidyll]

My understanding was empty fuel tank, never seen the 1L quoted. Where'd you see that?



in one of the pommie mags some time ago. it was an article on this very topic.

in the end, weight and BHP are PR bullshit unless there is a universally adhered to system.

perhaps a 'weigh off' at the next big KR meeting would be interesting with all the REAL weights published.

Real dyno numbers are available all over the internet.

[NordieBoy]

But then we can get into the "which dyno is a real dyno" debates...

[idleidolidyll]

But then we can get into the "which dyno is a real dyno" debates...

yep, common sense suggests that only results from one dyno should be compared but 'dyno racing' seems to be another motorcycle sport these days.

Then there's the engine HP versus rear wheel HP debate: yawn

IMO, engine HP is irrelevant. We can only use what makes it to the little strip of rubber touching the ground at any one time.

[NordieBoy]

yep, common sense suggests that only results from one dyno should be compared but 'dyno racing' seems to be another motorcycle sport these days.

Inertia or eddy-current dyno?

:dodge:

[warewolf]

perhaps a 'weigh off' at the next big KR meeting would be interesting with all the REAL weights published.Ahem, I have a cunning plan...

A mate here works for a company that makes weigh scales. He has offered to make available a set of cattle scales to have a weigh-in, to the point he will recalibrate the scales to be most accurate around the figures we expect to get (ie 150kg not 800kg). Sounds a little bit more serious/accurate than my bathroom scales!

The ideal time is perhaps around Xmas/New Year when a few of the CHC adventurers are up here with a greater variety of bikes, the only problem with that is my mate is unlikely to be available. But I could always put the feelers out locally to try and cover most of the common adventure bikes at some other time. Whatever happens it will be announced here...stay tuned to this channel!

[idleidolidyll]

Ahem, I have a cunning plan...

A mate here works for a company that makes weigh scales. He has offered to make available a set of cattle scales to have a weigh-in, to the point he will recalibrate the scales to be most accurate around the figures we expect to get (ie 150kg not 800kg). Sounds a little bit more serious/accurate than my bathroom scales!

The ideal time is perhaps around Xmas/New Year when a few of the CHC adventurers are up here with a greater variety of bikes, the only problem with that is my mate is unlikely to be available. But I could always put the feelers out locally to try and cover most of the common adventure bikes at some other time. Whatever happens it will be announced here...stay tuned to this channel!

good on yer!

see if you can get the board gods to include this as an event on KR, I'm sure it could even be used as a fund raiser for the ambulances or spinal unit etc.
I'd be happy to cough up a coupla dollars for the privelage.

[deanohit]

Jeez a factory stunt bike sounds cool, specially the single sided swing arm, looks to flash to be dropping it though.

[NordieBoy]

At least you'd only scratch up one side of the swingarm :)