Yamaha Tri-Z 250 3-wheeler
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
Thats not correct, if the Z was so bad, why wouldn't they have just redesgned it for a quad? They didn't "get out" of the game, they just saw another angle and went for it.The Z as I stated is a little slower than the R, but with an LRD pipe, it rips, trust me.And the handling, the Z's gas tank is under the seat, which gives it a real low center of gravity and it corners better than the R because of it.
#7
I rode a 85? basically stock Tri-Z and it felt super quick. In fact it felt quicker than my 400ex.
So we lined up on a country road and I beat it pretty bad. I guess with it just having 3 wheels and how the power comes on it makes it feel so quick. I definately didn't expect to beat it like that.
So we lined up on a country road and I beat it pretty bad. I guess with it just having 3 wheels and how the power comes on it makes it feel so quick. I definately didn't expect to beat it like that.
Trending Topics
#8
Think whatever you want, but the Tri-Z was never a threat on a race track. Look at it this way, if it was so good, why didn't Yamaha redesign it as a quad like Honda and Kawasaki did? I think you know the answer. Even Yamaha's latest attempt to best the mighty 250R falls short on the track. However, both the Banshee and the Raptor are very good at what they do.
#9
That doesn't make sense, if the 250 market was so important to them, why wouldn't they just have used a new 250 motor then? They saw another angle and did what they considered innovative and original and brought the 350 twin to the market.It appears to have been successful.I know from personal and educated expierience the Z isn't that far behind the 250R or Tecate, like I said with an LRD pipe, it rips and handles better than the 250R and Tecate because of its low center of gravity.
#10