The reality is that the OEMs went to aluminum frames
for two primary reasons, performance,
and cost savings..
(yes perimeter alum frame costs less to mass produce, less individual pieces ., less hand welding)
it had nothing ,or very little, to do with weight savings.
the 500AF's do weigh less than the steelie cousins..
but it has more to do with the modern chassis /wheels sets /suspension /tank and many other factors , and very little to do with the weights of the two frames by themselves.
As far as the handling ..yes the 500AF's handle far better.
its like night and day.there is no comparison.
The modern chassis simply has decades of chassis /handling performance improvements.
the perimeter frame " design " itself lends to a lower center of gravity to many of the key weeight components,,rads/tank seat etc.. (an inch lower can be a big deal)
could you atch it with an old steel frame?
possibly!!
but then again maybe not, and certainly not cost effectively..
thats what the OEMs already did?
took the best,and most cost effective approach, to better handling.
(at the moment that answer is a perimeter alum frame)
as far as the initial complaint about the 97 honda frame vs a 96 honda steel frame..
theres been ten years of developement since then?? ad some huge changes (4 frame generations)
i truely doubt jeremy would prefer a 93
(that he was very fond of at the time...(96/97) to any modern mxer?
(another point is jeremy's personal 93 CR250 frame geometry ,
was certainly far advanced past either of the very dated steelie
CR500 or KX500 chassis)
The steelie 500's work well.
i raced them forever.
but there is no comparison in handling to a modern chassis.
Since the example of McGrath was brought up
, i will tell you he has ridden CR500AF's, loved them ,
and his quote was- "best open bike ever made"
