How much power does it take to make a really quick 7?
Discussion
Mario149 said:
Green George said:
Wise words. I think a lot of people agree that the 7 sweet spot is 160-180 bhp. But it is all subjective.
If you're as heavy as me I suspect it becomes 200bhp 
Edited by Mario149 on Monday 15th February 11:22
If you spent most of your time 2 up then the extra power of a 420 might suit, but if you're on your own or have a skinny other half the 360 seems about perfect for the road.
A standard super light imho for road use is perfect.
One option is buy a rover with the 160 trophy engine fitted and try it in your caterham.
160bhp straight off and an entire car will be available for sub £1000. Gives you the option to try and still retain your original super light parts.
I owned an original super light and would love another. Perfection!
One option is buy a rover with the 160 trophy engine fitted and try it in your caterham.
160bhp straight off and an entire car will be available for sub £1000. Gives you the option to try and still retain your original super light parts.
I owned an original super light and would love another. Perfection!
I upgraded my first Seven with that engine and enjoyed it hugely. It does lose some of the more conventional and smaller K series character (it replaced a 1.4K) but it was very torquey and gave R300 pace.In fact ISTR the VVC became the R300 engine for a time.
But the thing about all Sevens is that, whether 100bhp or more than double that , they feel more like other Sevens than anything else- meaning a bargain basement Seven has more in common with a premium Seven than the premium one does with a price comparable competitor like a Cayman etc.
So,unless you feel your manhood is under threat because you can't keep up with an M3 down the straight (even though you may lap faster) a low powered Seven offers nearly all the fun of a high power one and can be much easier to drive .
I obviously suffer from self esteem issues as I went from 128bhp to 225bhp - but I can't say it has changed my life ,
But the thing about all Sevens is that, whether 100bhp or more than double that , they feel more like other Sevens than anything else- meaning a bargain basement Seven has more in common with a premium Seven than the premium one does with a price comparable competitor like a Cayman etc.
So,unless you feel your manhood is under threat because you can't keep up with an M3 down the straight (even though you may lap faster) a low powered Seven offers nearly all the fun of a high power one and can be much easier to drive .
I obviously suffer from self esteem issues as I went from 128bhp to 225bhp - but I can't say it has changed my life ,
I'm about to go from 160bhp, to 200bhp, which i'm really looking forward to 
I agree that 160 is probably enough most of the time. However, just sometimes on the road, and more frequently on track, you want more. I can't imagine needing more than 200.......but give it a couple of years....
I agree that 160 is probably enough most of the time. However, just sometimes on the road, and more frequently on track, you want more. I can't imagine needing more than 200.......but give it a couple of years....coppice said:
I upgraded my first Seven with that engine and enjoyed it hugely. It does lose some of the more conventional and smaller K series character (it replaced a 1.4K) but it was very torquey and gave R300 pace.In fact ISTR the VVC became the R300 engine for a time.
But the thing about all Sevens is that, whether 100bhp or more than double that , they feel more like other Sevens than anything else- meaning a bargain basement Seven has more in common with a premium Seven than the premium one does with a price comparable competitor like a Cayman etc.
So,unless you feel your manhood is under threat because you can't keep up with an M3 down the straight (even though you may lap faster) a low powered Seven offers nearly all the fun of a high power one and can be much easier to drive .
I obviously suffer from self esteem issues as I went from 128bhp to 225bhp - but I can't say it has changed my life ,
Agree with a lot of that. I spent 24 hours with a 360R SV 5sp manual and leather seats and fundamentally it was similar to my 620R as clearlyt a seven is completely different from almost anythign other than maybe a westfield. BUT, that said, once you account for the fact that there's always going to be a similarity, they are night and day different in a way that say a 270R and 360R are not. And I'm not just talking in terms of straight line grunt. The steering feels different, ditto suspension, ditto seq box, ditto noise, ditto power delivery (as opposed to absolute power). The 620R is a full on assault on your senses, above 4.5k rpm it feels barely tamed and frankly illegal. At those revs on anything other than a flat surface with warm tyres you're constantly managing the rear. But the thing about all Sevens is that, whether 100bhp or more than double that , they feel more like other Sevens than anything else- meaning a bargain basement Seven has more in common with a premium Seven than the premium one does with a price comparable competitor like a Cayman etc.
So,unless you feel your manhood is under threat because you can't keep up with an M3 down the straight (even though you may lap faster) a low powered Seven offers nearly all the fun of a high power one and can be much easier to drive .
I obviously suffer from self esteem issues as I went from 128bhp to 225bhp - but I can't say it has changed my life ,
On the road, the 360R is a better car to drive and actually in general more fun. But, for that instant adrenaline, specialness and frankly somewhat terrifying experience, it's nothing on the 620R.
BertBert said:
mike150 said:
'you don't need more power'..................... That's the most ridiculous thing posted on this thread!
Not at all. It's all about personal choice. I much prefer lower powered caterhams - 140-170 bhp. I've only been as high as 230, but I far preferred my k-1600 to the R500. So horses for courses!Bert
Whenever to issue of power is raised in Biker Banter it is mentioned that the throttle goes both ways. Surely this applies to cars as well. You don't have to use all of the throttle. The question then becomes more whether it is worth paying the extra to have extra power that you don't or can't use properly on the road. With bikes the difference in price between 100 bhp and 180 bhp is marginal so having more is easy to justify.
Esceptico said:
Whenever to issue of power is raised in Biker Banter it is mentioned that the throttle goes both ways. Surely this applies to cars as well. You don't have to use all of the throttle. The question then becomes more whether it is worth paying the extra to have extra power that you don't or can't use properly on the road. With bikes the difference in price between 100 bhp and 180 bhp is marginal so having more is easy to justify.
I'd argue that mega power is even more pointless on a bike than a 7. A 180bhp bike will do 100mph+ in first which is utterly f-cking pointless and I imagine quite boring once you get over the initial "powerrrrrrr!" 
It'll power wheelie in what, 1st, 2nd and 3rd? So you can't even use all the grunt you've got. At least in my 620 in the warm dry I can actually deploy the full potatoes in the first 3 gears without having to ease off or losing my licence. Ironically probably beating the bike up to about 70-80mph. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they make daft bikes like that, but let's not pretend they're even remotely relevant in performance terms to anyone that isn't a track guru. They make a 620 look look like the paragon of usable road performance
I really enjoy riding my street triple, and I would like more power occasionally, but only if it delivered lower down torque with similar in gear speeds that I would actually use, for which a super bike would be pointless. Arguably something gruntier but with less revs like a speed triple or sprint would actually be a better bike for me so that I don't have to be balls on fire at 13.5k rpm for my full performance Mario149 said:
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they make daft bikes like that, but let's not pretend they're even remotely relevant in performance terms to anyone that isn't a track guru. They make a 620 look look like the paragon of usable road performance I really enjoy riding my street triple, and I would like more power occasionally, but only if it delivered lower down torque with similar in gear speeds that I would actually use, for which a super bike would be pointless. Arguably something gruntier but with less revs like a speed triple or sprint would actually be a better bike for me so that I don't have to be balls on fire at 13.5k rpm for my full performance
I have such a bike - the BMW S 1000 R. Has the retuned engine from the RR to give more torque lower down the Rev range than the RR Superbike. I really enjoy riding my street triple, and I would like more power occasionally, but only if it delivered lower down torque with similar in gear speeds that I would actually use, for which a super bike would be pointless. Arguably something gruntier but with less revs like a speed triple or sprint would actually be a better bike for me so that I don't have to be balls on fire at 13.5k rpm for my full performance In the dry I don't have any problems using full throttle and the traction control is great at giving you power wheelies that are high enough to feel epic (on board - they probably look tame from the roadside) without being really scary. I agree that Superbikes are difficult to ride on the road because you pretty much have to ride on first or second to extract the power available.
Esceptico said:
Whenever to issue of power is raised in Biker Banter it is mentioned that the throttle goes both ways. ....
I have some sympathy with that view, but....Part of the joy is the feeling that you're extending the car fully. Holding back on throttle doesn't allow that.
Also, total throttle travel is broadly the same. So harder to modulate within sane realms on the road.
Traction control is also a necessary evil on high powered cars these days. As soon as those yellow lights flicker, you're wasting the power of the car.
boy said:I think Torque makes a difference how fast the car feels, 175 bhp with a bike engine doesn't feel as fast as 175 bhp with a Duratec, I drove our green Duractec N/A car today with 300 +bhp and 220 flbs torque and it's just too much for the road, just couldn't open the throttle up in any gear, unless your on a circuit and can get some heat in the tyres anything over 200 bhp is too much on cold tyres on the road,, Imo.
Esceptico said:
Mario149 said:
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they make daft bikes like that, but let's not pretend they're even remotely relevant in performance terms to anyone that isn't a track guru. They make a 620 look look like the paragon of usable road performance I really enjoy riding my street triple, and I would like more power occasionally, but only if it delivered lower down torque with similar in gear speeds that I would actually use, for which a super bike would be pointless. Arguably something gruntier but with less revs like a speed triple or sprint would actually be a better bike for me so that I don't have to be balls on fire at 13.5k rpm for my full performance
I have such a bike - the BMW S 1000 R. Has the retuned engine from the RR to give more torque lower down the Rev range than the RR Superbike. I really enjoy riding my street triple, and I would like more power occasionally, but only if it delivered lower down torque with similar in gear speeds that I would actually use, for which a super bike would be pointless. Arguably something gruntier but with less revs like a speed triple or sprint would actually be a better bike for me so that I don't have to be balls on fire at 13.5k rpm for my full performance In the dry I don't have any problems using full throttle and the traction control is great at giving you power wheelies that are high enough to feel epic (on board - they probably look tame from the roadside) without being really scary. I agree that Superbikes are difficult to ride on the road because you pretty much have to ride on first or second to extract the power available.
Mario149 said:
The R is an improvement, in the same way that an Street Triple R is better than a Daytona (which was not as fun to ride when I tried one, although it did have many good qualities), but if you're wheelying with TC keeping it in check, you're still not using all the available grunt. Would it truly be any less fun if it had 130bhp? Does 1st still go to 100mph? Like I said, I'm really glad these bonkers bikes exist, and no doubt I'll try one one day to see what they're all about, but one can't help but think the numbers are a bit silly
I tried a number of bikes last year, including the Daytona and CBR 600 RR but also the full fat bikes (S 1000 RR,Aprilia RSV4 RF, Ducati 1299). The key difference with the litre bikes is that they have instant go - you don't really have to think about changing gear if you see a gap.
130 bhp is plenty (similar power to weight of a 620R with one passenger). But if you have managed to use full revs and power on something like the S 1000 RR then it is quite an experience. As noted above, the additional cost of the extra horses is pretty low for bikes and there is not much of a downside. I was out for about 3 hours on my bike on Saturday despite the rubbish weather and the power delivery is so linear and the throttle so sensitive that it was a doodle despite greasy, cold roads.
Gassing Station | Caterham | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff