RE: Mr Fireblade: PH2 Meets
Discussion
Steve Bass said:
Blah blah blah... and something long... then edited.
Steve... can I be honest. I couldn't be arsed to read all that.Edited by Steve Bass on Thursday 20th October 15:49
Edited by Steve Bass on Thursday 20th October 16:02
You are being smug. I had said I was being flippant you could saved 10 minutes of your day... but I guess it gave you an opportunity to revel in how well informed you are.
Dude you're awesome! We done? yawn...
Renn Sport said:
Steve... can I be honest. I couldn't be arsed to read all that.
You are being smug. I had said I was being flippant you could saved 10 minutes of your day... but I guess it gave you an opportunity to revel in how well informed you are.
Dude you're awesome! We done? yawn...
You're welcome. You are being smug. I had said I was being flippant you could saved 10 minutes of your day... but I guess it gave you an opportunity to revel in how well informed you are.
Dude you're awesome! We done? yawn...
And maybe you're a little better informed now...ignorance isn't incurable
Oh and the edits??
Jest spelling errars.
Edited by Steve Bass on Thursday 20th October 16:28
Steve Bass said:
Renn Sport said:
Steve... can I be honest. I couldn't be arsed to read all that.
You are being smug. I had said I was being flippant you could saved 10 minutes of your day... but I guess it gave you an opportunity to revel in how well informed you are.
Dude you're awesome! We done? yawn...
You're welcome. You are being smug. I had said I was being flippant you could saved 10 minutes of your day... but I guess it gave you an opportunity to revel in how well informed you are.
Dude you're awesome! We done? yawn...
And maybe you're a little better informed now...ignorance isn't incurable
Oh and the edits??
Jest spelling errars.
Edited by Steve Bass on Thursday 20th October 16:28
To add to Steve's detailed answer - this is one of the reasons why WSB and MotoGP have put 81mm bore limits on their 4 cylinder 1000cc bikes.
For MotoGP, this stops mega short stroke, ultra high power 20k rpm bikes being produced that don't work below 12k rpm and limits R&D costs.
For WSB, based on road bikes it stops development heading down a blind alley where the road bikes end up being like an R6 on steroids and not bought by anyone - also effectively being slower than the old bikes for 95% of road riding.
From a power perspective, Honda retaining a 76mm bore tells you all you need to know when it comes to it going to be a little down on peak power. R1 79mm bore, S1000RR 80mm bore - But that longer stroke means a natural propensity to produce more torque lower in the rev range.
Yes you can play with valve overlap, valve size, cams, fly by wire throttle etc to make a short stroke engine feel quite grunty, but everything being equal, fundamentally, long stroke, narrow bore = grunty and breathless at the top, short stroke, wide bore = revvy with power stacked at the top.
It's worth reading up on Bore/Stroke ratios as that eliminates the engine size arguments. Most often, the bore/stroke ratio has far more effect on how a bike feels (revvy vs torquey) than most other factors. It also works when comparing all like for like engine configurations. eg, why a Panigale 1199 feels so different to an 1198.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroke_ratio If you work out the ratios for the sort of bikes you really enjoyed the engine feel of in the past - odds on if you try another bike with a higher ratio you'll find it too revvy or a with a lower ratio, you'll find it a bit breathless at the top.
The new Blade will undoubtably be the most 'effective' superbike on the road for the vast majority of riders - lack of weight, Honda's chassis magic for ease of use, their comfy riding positions and perfectly judged road suspension OEM setups also help. A design brief that aims to have it as a fast road bike first and a racer second is also key. Whether that's reason enough for anyone to buy one, is each purchasers business - after all cross plane cranks do sound very nice on the R1
Edited by 3DP on Thursday 20th October 18:07
I'm not sure I'd sold on the looks, but it's certainly good that Honda have upped their game to compete with the others
They're all very similar in power and technology now, so I guess it's down to which suits the buyer best in terms of fit etc
I'm certainly looking forward to trying one around a track some day as I have a soft spot for the Honda brand
They're all very similar in power and technology now, so I guess it's down to which suits the buyer best in terms of fit etc
I'm certainly looking forward to trying one around a track some day as I have a soft spot for the Honda brand
Renn Sport said:
Steve... can I be honest. I couldn't be arsed to read all that.
You are being smug. I had said I was being flippant you could saved 10 minutes of your day... but I guess it gave you an opportunity to revel in how well informed you are.
Dude you're awesome! We done? yawn...
I think that is a pretty churlish and childish response when someone has done exactly what you asked and has not only spent time replying but has given one of the clearest explanations of how an engine develops power. I learnt more about the relationship between torque and BHP reading that since my dad taught me about the Otto four stroke cycle 40 something years ago. As Benjamin Franklin said "investment in knowledge pays the best interest". We all just got a free dividend, so many thanks from me You are being smug. I had said I was being flippant you could saved 10 minutes of your day... but I guess it gave you an opportunity to revel in how well informed you are.
Dude you're awesome! We done? yawn...
Steve Bass said:
Smug?... maybe better informed
Ok, so lets walk you through this.....
Engines make torque. They convert chemical energy into linear motion via combustion. This linear motion is converted to rotational motion by the crank to give us a reciprocating output.
Now if engines make torque, or a twisting foce at the crank, whats bhp? Well, simply put its nonsense. Its a fabricated figure to give a comparison against, you guessed it, the effective work of a horse. In the 1700's
As a number it's derived from torque, (the true output of the engine) and rpm. So simply put, the higher you rev, the more bhp you make. The formula being RPM X Torque / 5252 its clear that rpm rises increase bhp.
So if an engine makes torque, what effects this?
An engine has fixed parameters, like bore, stroke, compression ratio, included valve angle, valve area, valve timing (in non vtec engines) , intake runner length, exhaust length and volume and so on. The list is long.
Now you have variable parameters like throttle angle, injection pulse width, ignition timing, intake runner length variable systems and so on.
Now any system has an optimal operating condition. So an engine with a set bore and stroke, valve timing and lift etc will have a point in its rpm range where it's producing the maximum torque it can. Either side of this rpm number it loses efficiency and therefore output.
Now if we go back to the basis that bhp is a function of rpm, then more rpm is better. But more rpm requires specific conditions of valve timing and overlap, which being fixed can't alter through the rev range. So an intake runner that creates a small hemholz resonance and effectively supercharges the intake at 13000rpm and supports the engines airflow demands at that rpm number will have poor flow dynamics at 9000 for example and cause a loss at the non optimized points.
All pretty simple so far......
Now as to the torque outputs of modern litre bikes, would you be amazed by learning that every single one produces between 113nm and 115nm. Incredible hey...
Well not really. They all make the same specific output because they are all optimised at 1000cc. What changes is the point in the rev range at which the max torque is delivered.
So we now realise we have engines that are making the 200bhp not because of some magic but by revving higher. And better efficiency. Less losses through reciprocating mass, friction and pumping losses.
But whist the bhp figures have gone up, why have torque numbers not?? Because we go back to the top... optimisation occurs at a single point. Yes, bhp rises with rpm but torque drops away.
So you ask why Honda can't give a peaky 200bhp or a torque laden 190 at the push of a switch?
Because unless that switch can change cam profiles, compression ratios, valve timing and overlap, bore and stroke, inlet length and diameter as well as exhaust length and diameter, it ain't going to happen.
Yes, with the modern ride by wire electronics things like throttle mapping, ignition timing, engine braking can all be manipulated but these don't alter the engine characteristics. They mute or stifle it.
No surprise that the"naked" versions of superbikes, the Tuonos, CB1000R or MT 10, S100R all use the super bike engine but with different cams and set up. Result? Far less peaky delivery with broader torque but less outright power. But why should this surprise us? The motor has been configured for a different point of optimisation. You can't have your cake and eat it so to speak.
These points of optimisation result in the particular characteristics we recognise in certain manufacturers bikes. Broad smooth power, or screaming top end, punchy midrange? All derivatives of the engine configuration.
The previous Blade was optimised for broad power but couldn't support high power because it went out of its efficiency zone. Result? 114nm
BMW S1000RR makes 200 ponies but at 13800. Torque? ? 113nm. Amazing hey? Same torque yet more power..
Different engine configurations in modern litre superbikes result in different torque characteristics but always the same headline torque number.
Now as a comparison, look at 2010 era litre bikes. All made 180ish bhp but typically more torque, around 117nm. And the bhp typically peaked at 12000rpm. So while these motors made less power, they made more torque. Yet now we see typical bhp levels of 200bhp at 13500rpm and 113nm. So the ability to support high rpm breathing has improved and resultant bhp numbers increased but torque has reduced as conditions required to support such a high rpm level reduce the peak output at the optimum point due to concessions having to be made in the engine set up . Nothing for nothing. ?..
So how's this for a prediction... What's the betting on the new Blade making 114 to 116nm of torque. ?..
And whilst it may be a nominal 10 bhp down, it'll probably make more torque for more of the rev range than the competition. Which means it'll be just as fast and probably better on the road....
So before you start worrying about the Honda failing to match the pub bragg rights minimum bar of 200 ponies, take a little bit of time to understand what and why to understand the facts....
Hope that's not too smug for you.....
Thanks for that Steve. Very interesting. On the road low end torque seems to rule yet at the drag strip it seems to be BHP (the S1000 RR has better acceleration figures than the existing Blade). What is going on there? Acceleration is F/m so why doesn't torque determine acceleration?Ok, so lets walk you through this.....
Engines make torque. They convert chemical energy into linear motion via combustion. This linear motion is converted to rotational motion by the crank to give us a reciprocating output.
Now if engines make torque, or a twisting foce at the crank, whats bhp? Well, simply put its nonsense. Its a fabricated figure to give a comparison against, you guessed it, the effective work of a horse. In the 1700's
As a number it's derived from torque, (the true output of the engine) and rpm. So simply put, the higher you rev, the more bhp you make. The formula being RPM X Torque / 5252 its clear that rpm rises increase bhp.
So if an engine makes torque, what effects this?
An engine has fixed parameters, like bore, stroke, compression ratio, included valve angle, valve area, valve timing (in non vtec engines) , intake runner length, exhaust length and volume and so on. The list is long.
Now you have variable parameters like throttle angle, injection pulse width, ignition timing, intake runner length variable systems and so on.
Now any system has an optimal operating condition. So an engine with a set bore and stroke, valve timing and lift etc will have a point in its rpm range where it's producing the maximum torque it can. Either side of this rpm number it loses efficiency and therefore output.
Now if we go back to the basis that bhp is a function of rpm, then more rpm is better. But more rpm requires specific conditions of valve timing and overlap, which being fixed can't alter through the rev range. So an intake runner that creates a small hemholz resonance and effectively supercharges the intake at 13000rpm and supports the engines airflow demands at that rpm number will have poor flow dynamics at 9000 for example and cause a loss at the non optimized points.
All pretty simple so far......
Now as to the torque outputs of modern litre bikes, would you be amazed by learning that every single one produces between 113nm and 115nm. Incredible hey...
Well not really. They all make the same specific output because they are all optimised at 1000cc. What changes is the point in the rev range at which the max torque is delivered.
So we now realise we have engines that are making the 200bhp not because of some magic but by revving higher. And better efficiency. Less losses through reciprocating mass, friction and pumping losses.
But whist the bhp figures have gone up, why have torque numbers not?? Because we go back to the top... optimisation occurs at a single point. Yes, bhp rises with rpm but torque drops away.
So you ask why Honda can't give a peaky 200bhp or a torque laden 190 at the push of a switch?
Because unless that switch can change cam profiles, compression ratios, valve timing and overlap, bore and stroke, inlet length and diameter as well as exhaust length and diameter, it ain't going to happen.
Yes, with the modern ride by wire electronics things like throttle mapping, ignition timing, engine braking can all be manipulated but these don't alter the engine characteristics. They mute or stifle it.
No surprise that the"naked" versions of superbikes, the Tuonos, CB1000R or MT 10, S100R all use the super bike engine but with different cams and set up. Result? Far less peaky delivery with broader torque but less outright power. But why should this surprise us? The motor has been configured for a different point of optimisation. You can't have your cake and eat it so to speak.
These points of optimisation result in the particular characteristics we recognise in certain manufacturers bikes. Broad smooth power, or screaming top end, punchy midrange? All derivatives of the engine configuration.
The previous Blade was optimised for broad power but couldn't support high power because it went out of its efficiency zone. Result? 114nm
BMW S1000RR makes 200 ponies but at 13800. Torque? ? 113nm. Amazing hey? Same torque yet more power..
Different engine configurations in modern litre superbikes result in different torque characteristics but always the same headline torque number.
Now as a comparison, look at 2010 era litre bikes. All made 180ish bhp but typically more torque, around 117nm. And the bhp typically peaked at 12000rpm. So while these motors made less power, they made more torque. Yet now we see typical bhp levels of 200bhp at 13500rpm and 113nm. So the ability to support high rpm breathing has improved and resultant bhp numbers increased but torque has reduced as conditions required to support such a high rpm level reduce the peak output at the optimum point due to concessions having to be made in the engine set up . Nothing for nothing. ?..
So how's this for a prediction... What's the betting on the new Blade making 114 to 116nm of torque. ?..
And whilst it may be a nominal 10 bhp down, it'll probably make more torque for more of the rev range than the competition. Which means it'll be just as fast and probably better on the road....
So before you start worrying about the Honda failing to match the pub bragg rights minimum bar of 200 ponies, take a little bit of time to understand what and why to understand the facts....
Hope that's not too smug for you.....
Edited by Steve Bass on Thursday 20th October 15:49
Edited by Steve Bass on Thursday 20th October 16:02
Esceptico said:
Thanks for that Steve. Very interesting. On the road low end torque seems to rule yet at the drag strip it seems to be BHP (the S1000 RR has better acceleration figures than the existing Blade). What is going on there? Acceleration is F/m so why doesn't torque determine acceleration?
Ignoring absolute figures as American here are the overlays of the 2014 Fireblade (last updated Blade) and 2014 S1000RR
Seeing as 3rd gear on the Blade does a GPS 143mph at limiter (13200rpm ish) on my 2015 Blade, and when seriously cracking on it's wheelieing in 2nd and 3rd over bumps etc, the S1000RR can't really use it's top end until 4th gear or probably 3rd on smooth roads the rest of the time, the anti-wheelie is going to be cutting power. Real world fast road revs means making significant progress staying in the upper midrange. 7000-9000rpm sees the Blade making 10-20% more power.
I'm not sure on the current S1000RR, but clever camming, combustion chambers, improved efficiency etc may have plugged the mid-range gap compared to the Blade's 2008 architectured engine. What will be interesting is the 2017 Blade with 2017 engine architecture, same bore and stroke as current Blade and less weight. I'm guessing it may be the roll-on king although the GSXR's VVT is a curve ball.
Good question on the acceleration equalling Force/Mass and it's relation to torque. I get a bit lost as it's 19 years since I studied any Physics (or rather Mathematical mechanics). It's to do with the type of force Torque is (actually a product of Force and lever length - a twisting motion rather than a linear force) 'Impulse', 'Work' (power being the rate at which work is done), 'moments' and the like and I've been drinking. I'm sure Steve understands all that with his day job
It's an awful way OT 
Esceptico said:
On the road low end torque seems to rule yet at the drag strip it seems to be BHP (the S1000 RR has better acceleration figures than the existing Blade). What is going on there? Acceleration is F/m so why doesn't torque determine acceleration?
So now we're bringing another factor into the equation. Gearing. Yes, a=f\m but that's at the rear wheel, where the work is actually done.
High torque numbers allow a greater spread of power across the Rev range. So you're able to ride along in a single gear and accelerate without the need to change down.
At the drag strip you're launching at very high rpm where bhp is higher. At the drag strip outright bhp is king to the point of being able to calculate the ET of a machine based on bhp and weight.
And what Pete says is absolutely spot on. Bore and stroke are the absolute fundamentals in regards to power characteristics. Even a difference of 0.1mm can make a major difference in feel and power so to see Honda retain the 76mm bore indicates they're aiming for a better spread throughout the Rev range. But to achieve 190 bhp is good going as the smaller the bore the longer the stroke and the slower it will rev. Which limits the headline bhp number.
What's going to be interesting on the Blade is the claimed weight loss as this plays a massive role as well.. Consider the M side of the equation.
15kgs as a %age of a bike is a big amount..
Edited by Steve Bass on Friday 21st October 02:22
R39S1 said:
Renn Sport said:
Steve... can I be honest. I couldn't be arsed to read all that.
You are being smug. I had said I was being flippant you could saved 10 minutes of your day... but I guess it gave you an opportunity to revel in how well informed you are.
Dude you're awesome! We done? yawn...
I think that is a pretty churlish and childish response when someone has done exactly what you asked and has not only spent time replying but has given one of the clearest explanations of how an engine develops power. I learnt more about the relationship between torque and BHP reading that since my dad taught me about the Otto four stroke cycle 40 something years ago. As Benjamin Franklin said "investment in knowledge pays the best interest". We all just got a free dividend, so many thanks from me You are being smug. I had said I was being flippant you could saved 10 minutes of your day... but I guess it gave you an opportunity to revel in how well informed you are.
Dude you're awesome! We done? yawn...
I am not disagreeing with sage Steve. He's the MAN! Should write a book on this stuff or get a Youtube channel.. be the next BVG.
Or back on topic... I think Honda have fallen short and the product isn't a step up in any regard. 190bhp is s
te for a new Superbike. There it is.Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff