FSM?

I know. Thanks for looking that stuff up. That was fun👍

I had noticed up stream in this thread you were praising AI….. here’s what it says about our silly wind / tricycle discussion………

When Steve Martin said, “Let’s get small,” he was referring to the title and central concept of his 1977 comedy album, Let’s Get Small. The phrase comes from a stand-up routine where Martin humorously suggests that instead of getting high through drugs, people should “get small” by shrinking themselves, both physically and metaphorically, to escape reality or achieve a different perspective. The bit plays on absurd, exaggerated ideas—like becoming microscopically small to avoid detection or responsibility—delivered in Martin’s signature zany, ironic style.

The phrase captures his surreal humor and anti-establishment take on the counterculture of the 1970s, poking fun at the idea of altering consciousness while proposing something whimsical and impossible. It’s less about a literal meaning and more about the absurd, playful energy of his comedy, encouraging audiences to embrace the ridiculous. The album’s title track and routine helped cement Martin’s reputation as a groundbreaking comedian.

Post it up… I like to see it.😂

A glimpse into the depressing, "that's not what the computer said", future.

Where do we go from here? Applying the previously brought up, "absolute power corrupts absolutely", do we all collectively trust the insanely powerful computer or will it be yet another device poised to divide us through mistrust of a system in which we can't be certain of it's intensions. And what happens when said computer decided, "enough is enough", and turns on us? Perhaps that will be the one thing to finally unite humanity?!

And with that, I'm out. I started the new "Aliens" show and the first episode made me hungry for a second... though this Ai talk is making me consider rewatching The Matrix.

This was fun, thanks Void.

👍🏻

The Jerk is a masterpiece that I still often quote from. The man with two brains is great, too.

I’m still laughing at that one. “Hey, wait a dang minute there, Grok!”

This is what we really wanted to know - Is the new beta RX 350 two-stroke a big bore 250 or a standalone engine

The 2026 Beta RX 350 two-stroke is not a big bore version of the 250 but a standalone engine designed specifically for the RX 350 model. Below is a detailed explanation based on available information from web sources, particularly addressing the engine’s specifications and design differences.

Key Evidence Supporting a Standalone Engine

Distinct Bore and Stroke:

The Beta RX 350 two-stroke has a bore of 78mm and a stroke of 73.6mm, resulting in a displacement of 351.7cc. In contrast, the RX 250 two-stroke has a bore of 66.4mm and a stroke of 72mm, yielding 249cc (,,).

These measurements show that the RX 350’s engine is not simply a bored-out version of the 250, as the bore and stroke differences are significant. The RX 350’s larger bore and slightly longer stroke indicate a purpose-built design rather than a modification of the 250’s engine.

New Engine Cases and Crankshaft:

Both the RX 250 and RX 350 feature new engine crankcases tailored to their respective displacements, with different internals matched to each model’s crankshaft (,). This suggests distinct engineering for each engine, as opposed to a shared platform modified for larger displacement.

The RX 350’s crankshaft is designed for its specific stroke (73.6mm), further distinguishing it from the RX 250’s 72mm stroke (,).

Dual-Spark-Plug Head:

A notable difference is the RX 350’s dual-spark-plug cylinder head, which enhances combustion stability and power delivery, giving it a “linear power delivery” similar to a four-stroke (,,). The RX 250, however, uses a single-spark-plug head, designed for “explosive performance” suited for racing (,). This distinction in cylinder head design indicates that the RX 350’s engine is uniquely engineered, not a derivative of the 250.

Purpose-Built Design:

Beta’s press releases emphasize that both the RX 250 and RX 350 received completely new, purpose-built engines for 2026. The RX 350 was designed to combine the advantages of a two-stroke (simplicity, low maintenance) with a four-stroke-like power delivery, targeting recreational riders and those seeking high torque (,,). The RX 250, meanwhile, is tuned for high-revving, race-focused performance (). These differing design goals suggest separate engineering efforts.

The RX 350 replaces the previous 300cc model, which had a bore of 73mm and stroke of 69.9mm (,). The RX 350’s larger bore and longer stroke (78mm x 73.6mm) indicate it’s not a reworking of the 300 either but a new platform.

Exhaust and Power Valve Differences:

The RX 350 has a dedicated exhaust system with a larger internal silencer diameter compared to the RX 250, tailored to its engine characteristics (,,). Additionally, the power valve on the RX 350 uses different springs to manage its distinct power delivery, further differentiating it from the RX 250 (,).

Community and Expert Discussion:

Some online discussions speculated that the RX 350 might be a bored-out 250, similar to how Beta’s 200cc engine is a modified 125 (). However, the specific bore and stroke measurements, combined with Beta’s documentation of new engine cases and components, confirm that the RX 350 is a standalone design. For comparison, a big bore kit typically increases bore size without altering stroke or requiring entirely new crankcases, which is not the case here.

Comparison to Big Bore Kits

A big bore kit typically involves increasing the cylinder bore of an existing engine (e.g., a 250cc to 300cc) while retaining the same stroke, crankshaft, and often the same crankcases. For example:

Beta’s previous 300cc engine (73mm bore x 69.9mm stroke) was distinct from its 250cc (66.4mm bore x 72mm stroke), but not merely a bored-out version, as it had unique components ().

The RX 350’s 78mm bore and 73.6mm stroke, along with new crankcases, crankshaft, and dual-spark head, indicate a more comprehensive redesign than a simple big bore modification of the RX 250.

Why a Standalone Engine?

Beta’s decision to create a standalone RX 350 engine aligns with their goal to offer a unique motocross bike that bridges the gap between the race-focused RX 250 and the four-stroke RX 450. The RX 350 is marketed as a “fun” bike for recreational riders, with a torquey, linear power delivery that mimics a four-stroke while retaining two-stroke simplicity (,). This required a distinct engine design to achieve the desired performance characteristics, unlike the high-revving RX 250 built for MX2 competition ().

Addressing Potential Confusion

Some sources, like forum posts on Vital MX, initially questioned whether the RX 350 was a bored-out 250, drawing parallels to historical examples like Steve Lamson’s 250-to-360 conversion in 1989 (). However, Beta’s official specifications and design details clarify that the RX 350 is a standalone engine, not a derivative. The company’s emphasis on new components (crankcases, cylinders, pistons, and exhaust) and the distinct bore/stroke ratios dispel the big bore theory.

Conclusion

The 2026 Beta RX 350 two-stroke is a standalone engine, not a big bore version of the RX 250. It features a unique 78mm x 73.6mm bore and stroke, new crankcases, a distinct crankshaft, a dual-spark-plug head, and a tailored exhaust system, all designed to deliver a linear, torquey power output distinct from the RX 250’s race-tuned, high-revving performance. This aligns with Beta’s goal to create a versatile, rider-friendly motocross bike for 2026 (,,). If you’d like further details on performance, comparisons, or specific components, let me know

I did it from the app.  On the last one, I clicked the little button at the bottom (looks like two squares on top of each other) then I pasted it here.

This Grok thing is so awesome - it’s freaky.

For the record, I’d like to confess that I don’t believe in grok. 

I’ve see no evidence of its existence.

But. I did buy some peaches in Colorado a few days ago that are all the evidence I need that God exists. 

Cool…

Now do butterflies. 

This debate has sparked some great conversation. Both Void and Kenny posted that the probability is near zero that wind + parts = tricycle (or 747). Which is true, as every gust of wind is completely random, and the parts are static.  Neither would be classified as “life”, which is capable of change and adaptation.  In other words, evolving. That’s what separates inanimate objects from the idea that single-celled organisms could, given enough time and the right environment, develop into something greater. 

The concept of randomness seems to dissuade many. But as pointed out by posters and AI, the greater the number, the greater the odds that random events will occur. When those numbers are billions of years and trillions of opportunities, the concept seems plausible. 

Lots of cut & paste sabre rattling going on here.  I stand by my original post in this thread.   😋

Not to mention , were did the trike parts come from in the first place….or the torque …..😂

It wasn’t me that stipulated the parts were there. I just said scrap yard. 

Great thread over in moto discussing how flawed and susceptible to mistakes ai is.

Grok just took his shirt off.