eveRide's new review of rx3 "not so good"

[NM RETIRED GUY]

I just watched the new eveRide ADV review of the RX3 on you tube. What do you guys think? Honest?

[Merlin]

Originally Posted by NM RETIRED GUY

I just watched the new eveRide ADV review of the RX3 on you tube. What do you guys think? Honest?

Do you have a link.

[Azhule]

He's still riding the RX3 with all the "Stock Parts" and complaining about it... seriously tho... he complained the same amount when he had a stock KLR650... but after he spent 3k in upgrades... now he loves the freaking KLR650's...

So he loves upgraded / "9,000$" KLR 650's... but will talk crap about a sub $4,000 stock CSC RX3...

Still not a fair review considering he is comparing a stock RX3 "Adventure Bike", to his several upgraded "Dual Sport" bikes...

I never once heard him complain with his DRZ400 and KLR 650 about the speedo being off... even tho it's off about the same as the RX3... I know... I own a Gen 1 KLR 650 and it's speedo is off a bit too...

[fjmartin]

So here are the three related youtube links:
Talking about getting the RX3 -
The ghost ride -
The Review -

[culcune]

To me, watching the 'midweek blog' episode I happened to watch and link to the other day, he was being honest. He admitted that he was on terrain not meant for the RX3, but was still riding it, and did not crash! Right there, after listening to seemingly every anti-Chinese bike pundit for years, that episode proved that a Chinese bike was well built.

I have not seen this episode, but based on Azhule's comment, that seems to be the attitude we (collectively) take when it comes to bikes; if a stock bike is not quite there, but is a politically correct brand, then we can praise it once it has literally a few thousand dollars in aftermarket thrown at it. But take a first-time effort like the RX3 (I mean first time as in designing a unique bike, not the millions of enduros or scooters copied by dozens of other brands), and criticize it by taking a mainstream approach? I won't listen because I have been around Chinese bikes for over 10 years, and the RX3 is literally the first serious approach by any manufacturer that has been embraced by the mass market in the US (i.e. why I am not mentioning the CF Moto, as it wasn't embraced on a wide scale here). It has a relatively low cost of entry, has been proven, so is a winner in my book, regardless of what pundits write about it (even if it is a good review).

[Jayman77]

I have the tt250 and it is just what he described. But I knew that when I bought it. It is not a pure dirt machine. It is not made to be jumped or slammed up hills or run through a deep bog of mud. But I love it and it is very capable of getting you there and back but not in a race.

O and it is half the price of its Honda and Yamaha counterpart

[Azhule]

Originally Posted by Jayman77

I have the tt250 and it is just what he described. But I knew that when I bought it. It is not a pure dirt machine. It is not made to be jumped or slammed up hills or run through a deep bog of mud. But I love it and it is very capable of getting you there and back but not in a race.

O and it is half the price of its Honda and Yamaha counterpart

You still shouldn't be "jumping" those Jap bikes either, if it's a Dual Sport out of the box, little jumps/slams might be fine, but everything is going to break if dropped/jumped just the right/wrong way

Take it from someone who has ridden Japanese Dirt Bikes for ages (started riding 3 months before I turned 4 years old... and I'm almost 31 now)... every bike "out of the box/factory" is lacking... it takes some $$ and mods to make them work for :

A) Riders weight and riding ability/style
B) Where it is being ridden (on/off road, rocks, mud, sand, wet, dry, etc.)

I have personally seen a modded RX3 go just as fast up a decent mountain 4x4 trail with no issues as anyone else on the trail that day... was even being held up by traffic a few times too...

Again... if and when he puts some $$ into the bike will I take his "reviews on the RX3" with a grain of salt... at least get some better tires, the rear suspension upgraded or tuned for his weight, and sprockets for off road riding... basically do what he does with every other bike he rides and takes seriously...

Then he will probably fall in love with the bike for what it is

[CSaddict]

Everide's review was very on honest and very accurate. Period. It was spot on. It mirrors my ownership minus me having to change out a motor at 200 miles. I know people get wounded when I say it's just an "around the town bike" but it is. It's unsafe on the highway due to it being maxed or and barely running with traffic, the suspension beats you up on even the most nicely groomed fire roads. I do like the seating position with the tall seat though.

Mine will be traded or sold in the spring if anyone will buy it.

I gambled and lost. Live and learn.

[Azhule]

The same crashes and scratches on his KLR or DR and he would laugh for hours on end and call it "adding character to the bike" at the end of the day... do it to his Chinese RX3, and it's automatically "because it's cheap and made in China, it's not going to last, I'm going to baby it from this day forward because of a few scratches"



Sorry you don't like your RX3 CSaddict, some people will never feel safe with a small 250 on the 65 - 80+ mph "highways" we have, I know some days I feel like taking the slower side roads because of traffic being insane and I'm on the little Bashan 200... but most days you will see me riding at 70+ to get to my destination

I also notice almost everyone is riding with all those big CSC side boxes... maybe remove those big heavy ace bricks that are creating massive amounts of drag against the air, your bikes will go a wee bit faster at "highway" speeds who knows... it might even be a bit faster than a Prius getting up to speed too

[culcune]

I did watch the review, and I have to agree with Azhule--he seemed like he was describing a $10K dollar bike, rather than a $4k bike. I think that one thing I will criticize is the pricing. When these were first introduced by CSC, they were offered at $2900. The laws of economics kicked in, and now these are slightly under $4k. Still under others' entry level bikes, but at the lower $3k range, were more realistic, and less likely to be able to criticize them as harshly because of that price.

I still do not know what bike can be compared with the RX3 due to its pricing point? The DR200? TW200? Surely not the entry level street bikes as I would love to see a CB300f going off-road over the exact same terrain as the RX3 he featured in his mid-week blog video! In other words, he is reviewing a bike that has no equal here. The big brands' dual sports, such as those I mentioned and adding in the CRF250L or the Yamaha bikes, would need many dollars in aftermarket to add racks, panniers, cases, and crash bars. And, the DR200, VanVan 200, or TW200 would not be able to get up to interstate highway speeds.

[mrider]

He said he was testing it for how it's marketed and then proceeds to ride on aggressive trails and compares it to dual sports; neither of which is how it is marketed. I own an RX3 and a wr250r. They both have their place, and I would never consider riding a stock rx3 on some of the trails he rode it on. Ridiculous. Just in the way some guys spend $ to make a WR more 'adventure' you would have to spend $ to make an rx more off road.

[Lee R]

I think his review was honest and he made a lot of valid points. Why it's so negative is that it's a direct comparison to the pure dual sports. The RX3 is worse in about every way compared to an actual dual sport on trails which he absolutely makes clear.

The RX3 is a CB250 in adventure clothes. Sure it'll go on some trails but so will that CB250. If you put a 18" front and some crash bars/skid plate on that bike you'd have the RX3. It's NOT as good as the other dual sports on trails. Sure you can go at a mellow pace and get places but as soon as you get aggressive it's out of control and all over the place.

The main "problem" with the RX3 is the cost, it's now 4275 dollars once you add the fees. Thats very lightly used KLR650, DR650 BRAND NEW CB300F (3900) Yamaha R3 (4750 otd) Suzuki VanVan 200/TU 250 etc territory. The RX3 is not as good or reliable as those bikes. The dual sports crush it offroad and the R3/CB300F are better street bikes. If Honda made a CB300X that would be extreme competition for the RX3.

It's a good buy at 2895 or low 3000's but not at 4275.

Resale is also something to consider, I'm sure I'll be lucky to get 2000-2500 for mine once I sell it. That's not the case with any of the Japanese bikes and if you buy used your barely losing anything. Those are extremely valid points he makes that anyone looking into this bike should carefully consider.

His last point about this being Zongshen's first real effort into the USA is really the most interesting, I do wonder what further revisions of this bike will bring and I hope it does add competition to the Japanese brands to lower the prices and bring in some other small ADV models.

[detours]

Here's the response I gave one of the Facebook pages.

____________

What everide missed, forgot or ignored is to describe what the RX3 'is' ... instead of what it's not. Its strengths, rather than only its weaknesses. Its capability instead of only its shortcomings.

Starting with the concept that the RX3 is a 250cc, not a 650, not a 1200. And a road-biased adventure bike, not a dirt bike, not a hooligan, not a sport tourer.

And then ask the question ... Does the RX3 do the job it was designed to do ... Long distance touring under 75 mph with adequate dirt capability for fire roads.

From there, it's fair to test how far you can go off-road, how fast it can go and how well its stock equipment hold up. But if you're going to push the limits, it's also fair to equip the RX3 for the conditions ... Which everide did NOT do.

Instead, he beat it to death under conditions it wasn't designed to handle, and 'honestly' described its problems, but with no attempt to solve them. And with no attempt to describe its actual strengths ... Even though it actual DID what he asked it to off-road without breaking in half. But since he's 'worried' about Chinese quality, he calls it a failure.

So whatever. He proved it's not a wr250, a klr650, or a 1200 gs ... Big whoop, tell us something we didn't know.

Waste of time

[2LZ]

Originally Posted by detours

Here's the response I gave one of the Facebook pages.

____________

Starting with the concept that the RX3 is a 250cc, not a 650, not a 1200. And a road-biased adventure bike, not a dirt bike, not a hooligan, not a sport tourer.

And then ask the question ... Does the RX3 do the job it was designed to do ... Long distance touring under 75 mph with adequate dirt capability for fire roads.

...and let's not forget what a hoot it is to ride in the paved twisties!

I also think what he's missing besides its intended purpose, is that a very small percentage of the riders do and go where he did. You'd get something different more intended for that purpose. For what I ride it for, (paved twisties, gravel roads, light trails...and the occasional Wally World run), I can't think of a better bike for the $$$. To me, everything this dude put it through and it's still running is pretty amazing.

[Jay In Milpitas]

Among the things he mentioned were low top speed, fasteners falling off, and fork action.

The bike was bought used, and it's quite possible that it was one of the early "assemble it yourself" units. If the original owner failed to follow the CSC blog about tightening certain bolts, that would surely explain the muffler coming loose.

Fork action also applies. If the assembler left the factory oil in, mushy action.

Low top speed? Everyone say it together "Check valve clearance."