Beta Rev3 200 - Any Thoughts?

[tjp]

Hi Guys,

Are there many of you out there on beta rev3 200's?,

how do they compare to bigger bikes?

do they require a complete change of rider style?

anyone out there switched from the bigger bikes to a 200, and are you getting on better or worse with it?

id love to hear anyones thoughts as im really tempted at trying a 200

cheers guys

[grindrod]

I have a Rev 3 200 and find it excellent! I am now in the over 50 group and wanted to ride O50 on modern bike in local pre65 clubs, I asked Mark Kemp at BVM and he advised that many riders 'over bike' themselves and that given my light weight (55kg) and height 5'7" in old money the 200 would be ideal. He was absolutely right! Since then I have chatted to a number of riders about bikes and is surprising just how many Novice and Inters are finding the 250s too frisky let alone the 270's. Steve Saunders can tune the 250s to soften them and I know a number of riders have had that done.

All this might lead to you believe that the 200 is underpowered but that couldn't be further from the truth, it has a bottomless pit of torque but also flies when needed, if you are looking for a good club bike that won't disgrace itself at a National then I can certainly recommend the 200.

Hope this helps, Martin

[spenser]

I have wondered, does the 200 feel lighter than the 250/270?

Spencer

[doogle]

I ride a 07 200. I am 13 stone and around 6 foot.

I ride mainly road trials, clubmen route nationals, classic rounds. I have never found anything that the bike has not got enough power for. It is far better than will ever be.

Before the Beta I had always had 250s and had a 4rt immediately before it. The Beta felt light compared to the 4rt, and my results improved, but this was probably just new bike syndrome, as they levelled out after a few trials. If I was after another new bike I would have another, but I don't see the point in changing at the moment.

[betabantam]

I went to the BVM for the 200 and came away with the 270? How did that happen. Having just been on another 200, the 200 feels lighter and is a much softer power delivery. The actual wet weight is only 1-2kg lighter depending on year of bike, but when riding does feel a lot lighter due to the smaller engine and flywheel. Do not mistake the soft power delivery for lack of power, it is just far more controllable. Unless you are riding 4th gear National sections the 200 will do everything you need.

[weaseldog]

In short, unless you are doing clutch dumping full throttle splats up 6ft rock steps, the Beta 200 will do anything you ask of it in traditional style trials riding, novice to national. Only the top flight riders need more power than this bike has. Unfortunately there's a mix of ignorance and macho that leads people to a bigger bike that they struggle to ride. The Beta 200 feels so light and controlable compared to the bigger bikes, yet has enough guts to pull you through anything you'll find in traditional style riding. I started trials at the age of 30 after 20 years experience in motocross, enduro and trail type riding. I made the mistake of thinking I needed something with a bit of poke. After being abused by a TX270 Gasser for a year, I asked Nigel Birkett for help taming the beast. Nigel gave me some sound advice. Unless you know how to use power, it's the biggest hindrance you will ever have. You don't need a big engine for trials, you need technique. He went on to recommend the new model Beta 200 (1999 Techno)as the best way forward for me. I found a dealer with two in stock, and after a ride on their test ground, struck a deal to take one of them home with me. An absolutely fantastic bike, which served me well for the next 4 years. My riding improved ten fold. Then, stupidly listening to riding mates telling me I was ready for a bigger bike, I made another serious error in the shape of a TXT280. I love Gassers, had a few EC250 over the years, and have had a 2005 TXT250 Pro for over 4 years now (son rides it now) but after the Beta 200 the 280 was a serious handful, and did nothing for my results. A 2002 TXT200 Pro came next, very revvy, little torque. Then a 2003 TXT200 Pro, a little better, but not enough torque compared to the Beta. Next came a Montesa 315R, nice bike, very grunty but a bit bulky and heavy. I was offered a 12 month old 2005 TXT250 Pro for very little money, road reg'd and mint, so I took a chance. Beautiful bike to ride, really docile compared to my earlier 270/280 Gassers, but still not as smooth or rideable as the 200 Beta. So, when the chance of a mint 2005 200 Rev3 came along a couple of years ago, I took it. I've now given the 250 Pro to my son, and I ride the Beta Rev3 200 all the time now, it's like finding your way home after being lost. I'm probably going to be passing this one on to my other son who's coming over from motocross, he's ridden it and perfectly happy with it's performance. There'll be no mistakes this time though, it'll be another Beta 200 that replaces it, either late Rev3 or Evo, not sure yet, but one of those two, I've learned my lesson the hard way. Hope this helps. Sorry about life story, but it shows genuine advice, some reviews are from people trying to help, but only ever ridden that one bike.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Weaseldog

[mcman56]

I just changed from an 2002 Sherco 2.9 to a rev 3 200. The Sherco had the slow throttle and retarded timing to make it soft. The 200 has the fast throttle. Although I have not done any big climbs, power wise, they are surprisingly similar in sections. The 200 is weaker at the very initial crack of the throttle like when coming to a good size step with a 1 foot approach. (This could also be engine tuning or my desire to just use throttle and no clutch in situations like that.) The other thing I notice is the lighter flywheel...when off the power. When chopping off the throttle to roll up an obstacle, there is a little less flywheel energy to pull you up. I have found myself panic reving a few times at the very top of things but assume I'll get used to it. I was on the Sherco for 6 years so whatever style I have must have been adapted to that bike.

It seems to start on about 1/2 of a kick.

The 200 feels much lighter and sort of floats over obstacles. Newer/ better suspension must be part of that feel. In some situations, the front end feels lighter. That could be peg location or maybe I'm holding power on longer. It also turns much tighter than the Sherco.

It has the same stroke as the 250. Does anyone know if the cylinder casting is the same? If I decided I wanted a 250 could I just have it bored out and plated?

[pat_56]

"there's a mix of ignorance and macho"

"Unless you know how to use power, it's the biggest hindrance you will ever have."

"the 280 was a serious handful, and did nothing for my results. A 2002 TXT200 Pro came next, very revvy, little torque. Then a 2003 TXT200 Pro, a little better, but not enough torque compared to the Beta. Next came a Montesa 315R, nice bike, very grunty but a bit bulky and heavy."

Interesting notes of experience, the 315R was my dream find as it is highly respected and recommended but very rare. The Beta 200 appears to be neck and neck with the Montesa for loyalty and winning over the masses putting it in some very compelling company.

I am afraid that I am in a bit of a time panic as my son is 14 not giving me too many years to win him over from computers to trials so will be wanting to jump on spring. I now however am leaning on the Rev 200 as something I will want to snap up if the opportunity presents.