2025 KTM Freeride E

[Beagle]

Freeride torque is 37 Nm (at the countershaft or rear wheel?)

Varg torque is 275 Nm at the countershaft, 938 Nm at the wheel.

I think typical 4 stroke 450 torque is around 45-50 Nm at the wheel, 250 is more like 30 Nm.

 

[Erwin P]

Sorry to say, but you are very much wrong on torque numbers. The ICE numbers you quote are at the crankshaft. After all reductions a 450 does high 800's near 900's of Nm's at the rear wheel.

Torque numbers are good and all. But torque doesn't move you, power does.
The Stark on 45 HP is very very stuck in deep sucking mud, the rear wheel does not move. A 125 2 stroke will spin the rear wheel when the clutch is dropped.

Torque x RPM = Power. No revs, no power.

Edit: This is also why 60hp setting on the Stark to compete with MX1 ICE is so much of. The power and torque curves are quite lineair translating in roughly 700 Nm at the rear wheel. At that point ICE's have it beaten at both HP and Torque but still can't keep up from the start.

 

[Oded]

The Alta with its 42 hp in map 4 is not usable in hard enduro conditions. We use lower maps for these conditions (not sure the exact hp in these maps).

most riders (except top riders) will choose an Electric Motion Escape or a modded Ultra Bee over a Stark or Alta in hard enduro races like Red Bull TKO.

The Electric Motion Escape XR is a hard enduro machine, nothing short of that, with much less hp that the Varg.

We may be reffering to different type of riding though - For enduro and endurocross the Varg / Alta are great. for Hard enduro (slow, rocky technical), these heavy powerful machines are not the best.

 

[gewoontim]

Freeride torque is 37 Nm (at the countershaft or rear wheel?)

Varg torque is 275 Nm at the countershaft, 938 Nm at the wheel.

I think typical 4 stroke 450 torque is around 45-50 Nm at the wheel, 250 is more like 30 Nm.

The torque is probably at the motor. which has a few reductions and it will probably end similar to the previous Freeride.

What stands out to me is the voltage they are using. They are specifying a 50,4V system, which implies that they are on a 12S cell configuration. This means that outputting 19,2kW means a current of approx 440A (at nominal voltage). I cannot understand why they would take such a step back. It probably has to do with the Low voltage directive, but still...

 

[Erwin P]

I very much agree the Stark is not ideal for hard enduro and 80hp is way over the top, but some 35-40 ish would be my minimal. And it sure would very much depend on what kind of terrain. With some near vertical hill climbs in it 25hp turn pretty weak pretty soon. In hard enduro i mostly use my 35hp (or even 25 in real slippery) setting but with the hillclimbs i will go for 45hp.

Also in addition to my previous post. You need power to get something done. Just a lott of torque won't cut it when the rpm's drop. On an ICE you can nearly always get top power by just shifting down or dragging the clutch. A Freeride will need to be at a certain speed to have that 25hp. And well if you are below that while going for that hillclimb...

@gewoontim I can see why. They forced racing agency's like the KNMV into banning the Stark for ''fear of electrocution'', can't come up and use some high voltage system yourself can you...

 

[Oded]

The torque is probably at the motor. which has a few reductions and it will probably end similar to the previous Freeride.

What stands out to me is the voltage they are using. They are specifying a 50,4V system, which implies that they are on a 12S cell configuration. This means that outputting 19,2kW means a current of approx 440A (at nominal voltage). I cannot understand why they would take such a step back. It probably has to do with the Low voltage directive, but still...

I also wondered what makes manufacturers like EM, Cake, KTM choose such low efficient (low voltage) systems. apparently, It has something to do with homologation (making these bikes street legal in Europe).

 

[Beagle]

Sorry to say, but you are very much wrong on torque numbers. The ICE numbers you quote are at the crankshaft. After all reductions a 450 does high 800's near 900's of Nm's at the rear wheel.

Torque numbers are good and all. But torque doesn't move you, power does.
The Stark on 45 HP is very very stuck in deep sucking mud, the rear wheel does not move. A 125 2 stroke will spin the rear wheel when the clutch is dropped.

Torque x RPM = Power. No revs, no power.

Edit: This is also why 60hp setting on the Stark to compete with MX1 ICE is so much of. The power and torque curves are quite lineair translating in roughly 700 Nm at the rear wheel. At that point ICE's have it beaten at both HP and Torque but still can't keep up from the start.

Thanks, I guess the only proper comparison between ICE and electric would be torque at the rear wheel (with standard gearing) but I didn't have much luck looking for numbers for 450s.

Although this article says "32.9 lb.-ft [45 Nm] of torque at the rear wheel".

2025 KTM 450 SX-F Technical Information

The 2025 KTM 450 SX-F features the same reworked frame first seen on the 2024 KTM 450 SX-F Factory Edition, which is designed to provide a more comfortable ride.

www.dirtrider.com

If I understand correctly that maximum torque will only be available in 1st gear, right?

Assuming it's 50 Nm at the crank, and using
RW torque = engine torque x gear ratio x final drive ratio
I get 360 Nm (engine torque = 50 Nm, gear ratio = 2 in 1st, final drive ratio = 3.6) which is still much lower than for the Varg.

Is this calculation correct?

 

[Erwin P]

There was a dyno video of the Stark and an YZ450. Didn't you forget the sprocket ratio?

True peak torque is only in First gear, in said dyno video they did all the gears.

 

[Beagle]

There was a dyno video of the Stark and an YZ450. Didn't you forget the sprocket ratio?

True peak torque is only in First gear, in said dyno video they did all the gears.

If you're referring to Bryan Haskell Dyno vid they only showed power, not torque, if it's another one can you find the link?

I took final drive ratio value of 3.6, should be the same than 51:14 sprocket ratio, am I missing something?

 

[Erwin P]

I will look it up when at home, don't want to waste data on YouTube videos i've seen a while ago.

It was very clearly a Torque graph.

 

[Theo]

Torque x RPM = Power

I don't want to be pedantic, but, after having tried to apply that formula unsuccessfully for years with dyno charts and wondering what was wrong in frustration, I once found out that it's an incomplete formula.

Actually:

Power (W) = 2π • Torque (Nm) • rpm (dimensionless) / 60 seconds

Consideing that the only variables are power, torque and rpm and the rest are constants and using some conversion factors:

Power (Hp) = Torque (Nm) • rpm / 7,022

and

Power (Hp) = Torque (lbf•ft) • rpm / 5,252 This last one is another that I tried to aplly without success because people didn't specify the units and I used Nm.

 

[F451]

This latest iteration of the Freeride e is a disappointment to me (again), but not a surprise.

Where is my high performance, high quality, 240 lb or less, 50+ miles range, e-dirt bike? And yes I know the Freeride e is not intended to be that bike.

Still waiting...

 

[UKLee]

I notice it says the battery can be changed in under 10 minutes, the current version can be changed in under a minute if you needed to with the aid of a nut gun. It has 4 captivated nuts and 4 long studs the battery slides up and down on and the electrical connections are mounted on a base plate so no plugs to plug in. The new version looks to have the battery as a stressed member a bit like the stark. A backwards step in my opinion.

 

[Erwin P]

Depends, if it brings a more solid feel to the frame it might be considered a win.

The problem with the Stark is it being a 2 or 3 man job since you need to lift the bike from the battery.
Of the under 10 minute job is a 1 person job it's workable i guess since few are going to race this bike.

 

[rayivers]

Power (Hp) = Torque (lbf•ft) • rpm / 5.252 This last one is another that I tried to aplly without success because people didn't specify the units and I used Nm.

The one I use is Power (Hp) = Torque (lbf•ft) • rpm / 5252 (no period). Just tried it on a 2020 KTM 450 SX-F dyno chart, worked perfectly.

 

[Theo]

The one I use is Power (Hp) = Torque (lbf•ft) • rpm / 5252 (no period). Just tried it on a 2020 KTM 450 SX-F dyno chart, worked perfectly.

You are right; compared to English language, here we use commas instead of periods and vice versa, when writing numbers. Sometimes I forget about this differece (I should pay more attention or in different scenarios it could cause some serious misunderstanding when discussing something important). I've just corrected my post.

 

[Erwin P]

Thanks, I guess the only proper comparison between ICE and electric would be torque at the rear wheel (with standard gearing) but I didn't have much luck looking for numbers for 450s.

Although this article says "32.9 lb.-ft [45 Nm] of torque at the rear wheel".

2025 KTM 450 SX-F Technical Information

The 2025 KTM 450 SX-F features the same reworked frame first seen on the 2024 KTM 450 SX-F Factory Edition, which is designed to provide a more comfortable ride.

www.dirtrider.com

If I understand correctly that maximum torque will only be available in 1st gear, right?

Assuming it's 50 Nm at the crank, and using
RW torque = engine torque x gear ratio x final drive ratio
I get 360 Nm (engine torque = 50 Nm, gear ratio = 2 in 1st, final drive ratio = 3.6) which is still much lower than for the Varg.

Is this calculation correct?

Sorry, can't find the video.
Come to think of it i might have compared 2 video's. There was one that showed a rear wheel torque of a 450 in all gear so you got an ever lower graph.
Torque output on the rear wheel was also tested for a Stark wich was flat for a very long time.

It was not this video, but it does go a long way in explaining what i said early'er.

On 21:14 a graph is shown of the Stark in all settings.

In 50 HP wich, is a quite common setting, you have to go 60mph to get roughly 46 hp rear wheel. While on 25 mph you have to make due with 25 ish hp.
Same goes for the Freeride but in way lower numbers.
On my Beta 300 that has roughly the same HP numbers to a Stark in 50 HP it can get max HP at standstill if need be. That's a strong point of having a clutch to drop and gears to shift.

Stark does plenty well enough without gears because you can just switch up power until unrideable, but still from standstill a clutch would be needed for less powerfull bikes to get out of axle deep mud.

 

[Theo]

In 50 HP wich, is a quite common setting, you have to go 60mph to get roughly 46 hp rear wheel. While on 25 mph you have to make due with 25 ish hp.
Same goes for the Freeride but in way lower numbers.
On my Beta 300 that has roughly the same HP numbers to a Stark in 50 HP it can get max HP at standstill if need be. That's a strong point of having a clutch to drop and gears to shift.

One way in which you can look at power used to accelerate a mass, using high school physics (that's basically what I can do), is to consider it as the difference between the final and initial kinetic energy. You will notice that, for example, the average acceleration from 0 to a velocity v is a third than from v to 2v if the power is constant because of the v² in the formula of the kinetic energy; this was actually an exercise in a physics book that I have.
I also have one of those books for the laymen in which a motorcycle technician explains the physics of motorcycles and there is a formula for the maxmimum power usable before being traction limited and another one for wheelie limiting: in both cases, the maximum usable power depends on the speed, i. e. the faster you go, the more power you can use and the relationship is linear, so for example, at 25 mph you can use a little less than half the power that you can use at 60.
So at 25 mph you can use less power and you need less power than at 60. Is the power of the Freeride enough? I don't know; never tried one.
The situation in which a wheel is stuck in the mud is a different case.
I remember @Marko_Flux writing that an electric motor has little angular momentum and therefore it stores too little rotational energy for a clutch to give the same advantage of a clutch in an ICE.