FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety Alerts

KTM North America Recalls Off-Road Motorcycles Over Brake Caliper Crack Risk

The CPSC announced a recall of about 21,040 GASGAS and Husqvarna off-road motorcycles due to a rear brake caliper that can crack, posing a crash hazard.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 20, 2026, 6:40 p.m. ET
On August 20, 2026, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission () announced that , is recalling certain GASGAS and Husqvarna off-road motorcycles. The recall, number , covers 2021 through 2024 model year motorcycles. The identifying codes for this recall are Model Year, Models 2022, and Model 2021. The rear brake caliper can crack or break, reducing braking effectiveness and posing a risk of serious injury or death from a crash. No injuries have been reported. The recalled motorcycles include specific models from the 2021-2024 model years. The GASGAS models are red with a white GASGAS logo, and the Husqvarna models are white, blue, and yellow with the Husqvarna logo. The VIN is located on the right side of the steering head. About 21,040 units were sold in the U.S., and about 4,140 were sold in Canada. Consumers should stop riding the recalled motorcycles immediately and contact an authorized GASGAS or Husqvarna dealer to schedule a free repair. The recall notice provides the full list of affected models. The cause of the defect has not been determined, but the recall was initiated due to the risk of crash.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 120 Aug 2026, 22:40current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.