RE: Mr Fireblade: PH2 Meets
Discussion
ZX10R NIN said:
I think they've got it right having had a few ZX10R's & a S1000RR for the roads the Blade is actually on par with anything through the corners, yes you lose in outright speed but how often do you unleash every last bit of BHP on the road.
You are right of course and being an owner of the previous (er current) generation Honda Fireblade I was never left behind any of my superbike riding buddies on the road. My fireblade was a great road bike. Who uses the all the performance of their 911 Turbo or Ferrari on the road either? Its not quite about that.My point is, when you look at the ZX10R, S1000RR, 1299, RSV4R or the new R1 this bike falls very short in what 'I' would expect from Honda.
This is not pushing the envelope... this is just about keeping in touch so I am disappointed.
I think Suzuki's new GSXR1000RRw looks better on paper. Tech seems smarter too.
I am sure Honda will sell 1000's (see what I did) but I think the competition is better still with the bikes I have already mentioned.
190 or 200 bhp on the road makes the square root of f
k all difference. On the track racing all the bikes are tuned so that makes no difference either.
I suspect the only place all this matters to some is on a discussion forum such as this one or down the pub.
I have a nearly 60 year old mate with a 99 R1 standard everything with nearly 70k on the clock, no fker can catch him.
It all boils down to which bike you like the look of for us lot unless you're racing and at the top of your game.
k all difference. On the track racing all the bikes are tuned so that makes no difference either.I suspect the only place all this matters to some is on a discussion forum such as this one or down the pub.
I have a nearly 60 year old mate with a 99 R1 standard everything with nearly 70k on the clock, no f
ker can catch him.It all boils down to which bike you like the look of for us lot unless you're racing and at the top of your game.
Fair enough...
I guess I must not like the look of the Fireblade stat sheet. Prefer the R1 stat sheet.
I also don't like the upper fairing bolts on front cowl on the Fireblade.
Also I wonder if the ABS will have that special pull back to the bar feature Honda built into the current model?
I guess I must not like the look of the Fireblade stat sheet. Prefer the R1 stat sheet.
I also don't like the upper fairing bolts on front cowl on the Fireblade.
Also I wonder if the ABS will have that special pull back to the bar feature Honda built into the current model?
Renn Sport said:
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:
My point is, when you look at the ZX10R, S1000RR, 1299, RSV4R or the new R1 this bike falls very short in what 'I' would expect from Honda.
Honest question... How does this "Fall very short" of the bikes you've listed???
Because of 10bhp???
It has the same electronic systems as the mentioned bikes and taken from the RCV, it has a fair bit less weight than some of the above and all the bits like Ohlins, Brembos and Ti fuel tank and sub-frame.
If, by your own admission, unleashing every last bhp isn't the point, what exactly should Honda have done??
Perhaps created a 240bhp monster with a power curve like a knife edge that's unrideable on the road?
Which would have you complaining about Honda making a bike that's inaccessible to the majority.
But that's pushing the envelope...
How about we wait for the reviews and shoot outs on road and track and then see.......
3DP said:
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.
Not in Slick Mode, which is how I usually run mine on the road. Not because I fancy myself as some road racer, purely because the Anti wheelie makes it feel broken otherwise. 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.
While what you're saying re torque is correct, I can't really agree bhp is nonsense or just a 'fabricated figure'. Fabricated maybe in terms of units, but no less so that 'foot' in torque being the length of a man's foot. 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.
BHP is a measure of power' work done. So as a measure if what an engine can do it is far more meaningful that torque, which alone is absolutely meaningless in terms of performance. I'm sure you know all this, so perhaps a little disingenuous in your explanation eh?
Let's say I put my monster 4' long torque wrench onto the axle nut of the rear wheel and put in 120ft/lb torque. Now apart from over-torquing the nut I'm doing no work. So let's say I hang a 30lb weight off the end of my 4' wrench so there's still 120ft/lb being applied and I go in for a cup of tea. There's still no work being done. Lets say I leave it for a week. There's still no work being done. So a figure of 120ft/lb tells us absolutely nothing about performance.
Now let's consider a motorcycle and imagine that in round figures the rear wheel takes 8 feet travelled for 1 revolution...so 660 revolutions to go 1 mile. So at 60mph the rear wheel is rotates 39,000 times in the hour, or 660 times in a minute - 660rpm.
With this theoretical wheel size, and ignoring transmission losses, friction etc., I'm chugging along on my Indian at 3000rpm, where it should indeed be able to make 120ft/lb. Enough to blow off any upstart sportsbike with puny sub 100ft/lb torque eh?
OK, so we know reduction gearboxes are torque multipliers right? If we reduce the output shaft speed by 50% (with the caveats above) the torque is double that of the input shaft. We can feel that in practice with things like winches, where a small amount of human effort over lots of turns ends up pulling a massive weight over a smaller distance. And of course gearboxes, where we know first gear puts our more torque (and less speed) than second, and so on.
So my Indian in the example above has its 3000rpm crank speed reduced to the 660 rpm at the back wheel, so a factor of about 4.5, so the torque my back wheel can exert at 60mph is about 540ft/lb. Woe betide anything sporty coming up along side
But wait a minute, here's Freddy Fireblade, and he's also doing 60, but he can only make 80ft/lb at the crank
....but he's making it at 8000rpm 
His back wheel is going round at the same speed, and so to gear down his 8000rpm crank speed to 660rpm is a factor of 12, and so his 80ft/lb torque is multiplied to 960ft/lb. Which is 75% more than I'm making on the bagger, and so not surprisingly he can leave me in the dust
.So here we have a 120ft/lb bike, and a 80ft/lb bike and the simplified maths backs up the real world experience that a Fireblade is quicker than an Indian Chief.
And so what have the torque figures alone told us? Well, in isolation, absolutely nothing. Torque only makes sense in work/performance comparisons when we consider the rpm that that torque is delivered at (for shaft output). So we need some torque x RPM measure so we can compare things. It so happens bhp is already there as a measure, being torque (ft/lb) x rpm / 5252. We can argue the divide by 5252 is pretty arbitrary other than it makes the results smaller numbers. But nevertheless is give us a mechanism of comparing the relative powers, and hence likely performance, of engines in a way that torque alone simply cannot.
There's so much talk in the bar of 'torque winning races' etc., but that's misguided at best, if not actually plain wrong. Traction engines deliver massive torque, but you don't see them down the local drag strip as (ignoring weight) they make it at far too low an rpm. If you can do some mods to double the torque of your engine at a certain speed, then great, you'll sure feel that. But presuming you've got a gearbox, keeping the same torque but delivering it at twice the rpm will give you the same benefit.
So on the Tuscan with the LS engine, we got more power and better performance by a bigger cam and other goodies that brought the torque figures higher up the rev range. Now as a result it made the car just about undrivable at low speeds, but that's a lesson for another day - "big cams for high speed running, and why they're cr@p at low RPMs"
But of course in riding/driving there's a certain pleasure to be had with massive torque low in the rev range, which is why I ride an 1800cc V-twin (and drive 5.7L V8, or a 6.3L V8. I'll ignore the 4.2L V8 as that's revvier and a different kind of fun). I love rolling open the throttle at 1200rpm and just have the thing pull loud and strong. But it's no racer. Someone making a fraction of my torque, but making it at many times the rpm has the faster bike. End of. And we can make that assessment before even throwing our legs across the saddle based on power-BHP-and never by torque alone.
So, unless I really misunderstood the points you were trying to put across, then sure you're not smug, but then again neither are you correct
Edited by tvrolet on Friday 21st October 11:54
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.....
This is one of the best posts I've read here. You know your stuff and now I know a little better too! 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
tvrolet said:
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.
While what you're saying re torque is correct, I can't really agree bhp is nonsense or just a 'fabricated figure'. Fabricated maybe in terms of units, but no less so that 'foot' in torque being the length of a man's foot. 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.
BHP is a measure of power' work done. So as a measure if what an engine can do it is far more meaningful that torque, which alone is absolutely meaningless in terms of performance. I'm sure you know all this, so perhaps a little disingenuous in your explanation eh?
Let's say I put my monster 4' long torque wrench onto the axle nut of the rear wheel and put in 120ft/lb torque. Now apart from over-torquing the nut I'm doing no work. So let's say I hang a 30lb weight off the end of my 4' wrench so there's still 120ft/lb being applied and I go in for a cup of tea. There's still no work being done. Lets say I leave it for a week. There's still no work being done. So a figure of 120ft/lb tells us absolutely nothing about performance.
Now let's consider a motorcycle and imagine that in round figures the rear wheel takes 8 feet travelled for 1 revolution...so 660 revolutions to go 1 mile. So at 60mph the rear wheel is rotates 39,000 times in the hour, or 660 times in a minute - 660rpm.
With this theoretical wheel size, and ignoring transmission losses, friction etc., I'm chugging along on my Indian at 3000rpm, where it should indeed be able to make 120ft/lb. Enough to blow off any upstart sportsbike with puny sub 100ft/lb torque eh?
OK, so we know reduction gearboxes are torque multipliers right? If we reduce the output shaft speed by 50% (with the caveats above) the torque is double that of the input shaft. We can feel that in practice with things like winches, where a small amount of human effort over lots of turns ends up pulling a massive weight over a smaller distance. And of course gearboxes, where we know first gear puts our more torque (and less speed) than second, and so on.
So my Indian in the example above has its 3000rpm crank speed reduced to the 660 rpm at the back wheel, so a factor of about 4.5, so the torque my back wheel can exert at 60mph is about 540ft/lb. Woe betide anything sporty coming up along side
But wait a minute, here's Freddy Fireblade, and he's also doing 60, but he can only make 80ft/lb at the crank
....but he's making it at 8000rpm His back wheel is going round at the same speed, and so to gear down his 8000rpm crank speed to 660rpm is a factor of 12, and so his 80ft/lb torque is multiplied to 960ft/lb. Which is 75% more than I'm making on the bagger, and so not surprisingly he can leave me in the dust
.So here we have a 120ft/lb bike, and a 80ft/lb bike and the simplified maths backs up the real world experience that a Fireblade is quicker than an Indian Chief.
And so what have the torque figures alone told us? Well, in isolation, absolutely nothing. Torque only makes sense in work/performance comparisons when we consider the rpm that that torque is delivered at (for shaft output). So we need some torque x RPM measure so we can compare things. It so happens bhp is already there as a measure, being torque (ft/lb) x rpm / 5252. We can argue the divide by 5252 is pretty arbitrary other than it makes the results smaller numbers. But nevertheless is give us a mechanism of comparing the relative powers, and hence likely performance, of engines in a way that torque alone simply cannot.
There's so much talk in the bar of 'torque winning races' etc., but that's misguided at best, if not actually plain wrong. Traction engines deliver massive torque, but you don't see them down the local drag strip as (ignoring weight) they make it at far too low an rpm. If you can do some mods to double the torque of your engine at a certain speed, then great, you'll sure feel that. But presuming you've got a gearbox, keeping the same torque but delivering it at twice the rpm will give you the same benefit.
So on the Tuscan with the LS engine, we got more power and better performance by a bigger cam and other goodies that brought the torque figures higher up the rev range. Now as a result it made the car just about undrivable at low speeds, but that's a lesson for another day - "big cams for high speed running, and why they're cr@p at low RPMs"
But of course in riding/driving there's a certain pleasure to be had with massive torque low in the rev range, which is why I ride an 1800cc V-twin (and drive 5.7L V8, or a 6.3L V8. I'll ignore the 4.2L V8 as that's revvier and a different kind of fun). I love rolling open the throttle at 1200rpm and just have the thing pull loud and strong. But it's no racer. Someone making a fraction of my torque, but making it at many times the rpm has the faster bike. End of. And we can make that assessment before even throwing our legs across the saddle based on power-BHP-and never by torque alone.
So, unless I really misunderstood the points you were trying to put across, then sure you're not smug, but then again neither are you correct
Edited by tvrolet on Friday 21st October 11:54
Renn Sport said:
tvrolet said:
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.
While what you're saying re torque is correct, I can't really agree bhp is nonsense or just a 'fabricated figure'. Fabricated maybe in terms of units, but no less so that 'foot' in torque being the length of a man's foot. 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.
BHP is a measure of power' work done. So as a measure if what an engine can do it is far more meaningful that torque, which alone is absolutely meaningless in terms of performance. I'm sure you know all this, so perhaps a little disingenuous in your explanation eh?
Let's say I put my monster 4' long torque wrench onto the axle nut of the rear wheel and put in 120ft/lb torque. Now apart from over-torquing the nut I'm doing no work. So let's say I hang a 30lb weight off the end of my 4' wrench so there's still 120ft/lb being applied and I go in for a cup of tea. There's still no work being done. Lets say I leave it for a week. There's still no work being done. So a figure of 120ft/lb tells us absolutely nothing about performance.
Now let's consider a motorcycle and imagine that in round figures the rear wheel takes 8 feet travelled for 1 revolution...so 660 revolutions to go 1 mile. So at 60mph the rear wheel is rotates 39,000 times in the hour, or 660 times in a minute - 660rpm.
With this theoretical wheel size, and ignoring transmission losses, friction etc., I'm chugging along on my Indian at 3000rpm, where it should indeed be able to make 120ft/lb. Enough to blow off any upstart sportsbike with puny sub 100ft/lb torque eh?
OK, so we know reduction gearboxes are torque multipliers right? If we reduce the output shaft speed by 50% (with the caveats above) the torque is double that of the input shaft. We can feel that in practice with things like winches, where a small amount of human effort over lots of turns ends up pulling a massive weight over a smaller distance. And of course gearboxes, where we know first gear puts our more torque (and less speed) than second, and so on.
So my Indian in the example above has its 3000rpm crank speed reduced to the 660 rpm at the back wheel, so a factor of about 4.5, so the torque my back wheel can exert at 60mph is about 540ft/lb. Woe betide anything sporty coming up along side
But wait a minute, here's Freddy Fireblade, and he's also doing 60, but he can only make 80ft/lb at the crank
....but he's making it at 8000rpm His back wheel is going round at the same speed, and so to gear down his 8000rpm crank speed to 660rpm is a factor of 12, and so his 80ft/lb torque is multiplied to 960ft/lb. Which is 75% more than I'm making on the bagger, and so not surprisingly he can leave me in the dust
.So here we have a 120ft/lb bike, and a 80ft/lb bike and the simplified maths backs up the real world experience that a Fireblade is quicker than an Indian Chief.
And so what have the torque figures alone told us? Well, in isolation, absolutely nothing. Torque only makes sense in work/performance comparisons when we consider the rpm that that torque is delivered at (for shaft output). So we need some torque x RPM measure so we can compare things. It so happens bhp is already there as a measure, being torque (ft/lb) x rpm / 5252. We can argue the divide by 5252 is pretty arbitrary other than it makes the results smaller numbers. But nevertheless is give us a mechanism of comparing the relative powers, and hence likely performance, of engines in a way that torque alone simply cannot.
There's so much talk in the bar of 'torque winning races' etc., but that's misguided at best, if not actually plain wrong. Traction engines deliver massive torque, but you don't see them down the local drag strip as (ignoring weight) they make it at far too low an rpm. If you can do some mods to double the torque of your engine at a certain speed, then great, you'll sure feel that. But presuming you've got a gearbox, keeping the same torque but delivering it at twice the rpm will give you the same benefit.
So on the Tuscan with the LS engine, we got more power and better performance by a bigger cam and other goodies that brought the torque figures higher up the rev range. Now as a result it made the car just about undrivable at low speeds, but that's a lesson for another day - "big cams for high speed running, and why they're cr@p at low RPMs"
But of course in riding/driving there's a certain pleasure to be had with massive torque low in the rev range, which is why I ride an 1800cc V-twin (and drive 5.7L V8, or a 6.3L V8. I'll ignore the 4.2L V8 as that's revvier and a different kind of fun). I love rolling open the throttle at 1200rpm and just have the thing pull loud and strong. But it's no racer. Someone making a fraction of my torque, but making it at many times the rpm has the faster bike. End of. And we can make that assessment before even throwing our legs across the saddle based on power-BHP-and never by torque alone.
So, unless I really misunderstood the points you were trying to put across, then sure you're not smug, but then again neither are you correct
Edited by tvrolet on Friday 21st October 11:54
I particularly like the week-long not-moving 120ft/lb
Steve Bass said:
Renn Sport said:
My point is, when you look at the ZX10R, S1000RR, 1299, RSV4R or the new R1 this bike falls very short in what 'I' would expect from Honda.
Honest question... How does this "Fall very short" of the bikes you've listed???
Because of 10bhp???
It has the same electronic systems as the mentioned bikes and taken from the RCV, it has a fair bit less weight than some of the above and all the bits like Ohlins, Brembos and Ti fuel tank and sub-frame.
If, by your own admission, unleashing every last bhp isn't the point, what exactly should Honda have done??
Perhaps created a 240bhp monster with a power curve like a knife edge that's unrideable on the road?
Which would have you complaining about Honda making a bike that's inaccessible to the majority.
But that's pushing the envelope...
How about we wait for the reviews and shoot outs on road and track and then see.......
This is Honda so I expect more... this is forum to discuss s
t about bikes so I guess I am free to be disappointed.I recognise somehow the world still revolves and my mates are already calling Honda to place a deposit. I am leaning toward a R1 or maybe a Aprillia.
I am not impressed with the biggest of the big four Japanese brands. I am impressed with Kawasaki, Yamaha, Ducati, Aprillia and BMW. They are taking it forward.
That's it.. just forum discussion.
In the 21st century can people not understand, area under the graph rather than peak power and torque figures.
I love my engine. It feels gutsy where I want it and I appreciate its way off the peak power monsters but it feels bloody lovely to ride on a road.This fireblade will have the same ideals power where you wanot 90% of the time.
I love my engine. It feels gutsy where I want it and I appreciate its way off the peak power monsters but it feels bloody lovely to ride on a road.This fireblade will have the same ideals power where you wanot 90% of the time.
RemyMartin said:
In the 21st century can people not understand, area under the graph rather than peak power and torque figures.
I love my engine. It feels gutsy where I want it and I appreciate its way off the peak power monsters but it feels bloody lovely to ride on a road.This fireblade will have the same ideals power where you want 90% of the time.
The bit in bold is the important point which most seem to be missing, in fact the whole post is pretty much spot on.I love my engine. It feels gutsy where I want it and I appreciate its way off the peak power monsters but it feels bloody lovely to ride on a road.This fireblade will have the same ideals power where you want 90% of the time.
Renn Sport said:
Will I be called childish if I ask you guys to get a room?! I don't like public petting nothing against being gay just its not my thing. Don't gang up on me if I don't join you...
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 ste for a new Superbike. There it is.
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.Wow, in that case to quote someone more at your level:
" you are a sad, strange little man and you have my pity" Buzz Lightyear
Now back to the engineering..
tvrolet said:
While what you're saying re torque is correct, I can't really agree bhp is nonsense or just a 'fabricated figure'. Fabricated maybe in terms of units, but no less so that 'foot' in torque being the length of a man's foot.
BHP is a measure of power' work done. So as a measure if what an engine can do it is far more meaningful that torque, which alone is absolutely meaningless in terms of performance. I'm sure you know all this, so perhaps a little disingenuous in your explanation eh?
Let's say I put my monster 4' long torque wrench onto the axle nut of the rear wheel and put in 120ft/lb torque. Now apart from over-torquing the nut I'm doing no work. So let's say I hang a 30lb weight off the end of my 4' wrench so there's still 120ft/lb being applied and I go in for a cup of tea. There's still no work being done. Lets say I leave it for a week. There's still no work being done. So a figure of 120ft/lb tells us absolutely nothing about performance.
Now let's consider a motorcycle and imagine that in round figures the rear wheel takes 8 feet travelled for 1 revolution...so 660 revolutions to go 1 mile. So at 60mph the rear wheel is rotates 39,000 times in the hour, or 660 times in a minute - 660rpm.
With this theoretical wheel size, and ignoring transmission losses, friction etc., I'm chugging along on my Indian at 3000rpm, where it should indeed be able to make 120ft/lb. Enough to blow off any upstart sportsbike with puny sub 100ft/lb torque eh?
OK, so we know reduction gearboxes are torque multipliers right? If we reduce the output shaft speed by 50% (with the caveats above) the torque is double that of the input shaft. We can feel that in practice with things like winches, where a small amount of human effort over lots of turns ends up pulling a massive weight over a smaller distance. And of course gearboxes, where we know first gear puts our more torque (and less speed) than second, and so on.
So my Indian in the example above has its 3000rpm crank speed reduced to the 660 rpm at the back wheel, so a factor of about 4.5, so the torque my back wheel can exert at 60mph is about 540ft/lb. Woe betide anything sporty coming up along side
But wait a minute, here's Freddy Fireblade, and he's also doing 60, but he can only make 80ft/lb at the crank ....but he's making it at 8000rpm
His back wheel is going round at the same speed, and so to gear down his 8000rpm crank speed to 660rpm is a factor of 12, and so his 80ft/lb torque is multiplied to 960ft/lb. Which is 75% more than I'm making on the bagger, and so not surprisingly he can leave me in the dust.
So here we have a 120ft/lb bike, and a 80ft/lb bike and the simplified maths backs up the real world experience that a Fireblade is quicker than an Indian Chief.
And so what have the torque figures alone told us? Well, in isolation, absolutely nothing. Torque only makes sense in work/performance comparisons when we consider the rpm that that torque is delivered at (for shaft output). So we need some torque x RPM measure so we can compare things. It so happens bhp is already there as a measure, being torque (ft/lb) x rpm / 5252. We can argue the divide by 5252 is pretty arbitrary other than it makes the results smaller numbers. But nevertheless is give us a mechanism of comparing the relative powers, and hence likely performance, of engines in a way that torque alone simply cannot.
There's so much talk in the bar of 'torque winning races' etc., but that's misguided at best, if not actually plain wrong. Traction engines deliver massive torque, but you don't see them down the local drag strip as (ignoring weight) they make it at far too low an rpm. If you can do some mods to double the torque of your engine at a certain speed, then great, you'll sure feel that. But presuming you've got a gearbox, keeping the same torque but delivering it at twice the rpm will give you the same benefit.
So on the Tuscan with the LS engine, we got more power and better performance by a bigger cam and other goodies that brought the torque figures higher up the rev range. Now as a result it made the car just about undrivable at low speeds, but that's a lesson for another day - "big cams for high speed running, and why they're cr@p at low RPMs"
But of course in riding/driving there's a certain pleasure to be had with massive torque low in the rev range, which is why I ride an 1800cc V-twin (and drive 5.7L V8, or a 6.3L V8. I'll ignore the 4.2L V8 as that's revvier and a different kind of fun). I love rolling open the throttle at 1200rpm and just have the thing pull loud and strong. But it's no racer. Someone making a fraction of my torque, but making it at many times the rpm has the faster bike. End of. And we can make that assessment before even throwing our legs across the saddle based on power-BHP-and never by torque alone.
So, unless I really misunderstood the points you were trying to put across, then sure you're not smug, but then again neither are you correct
No intention of being disingenuous so I'll clarify if I can.BHP is a measure of power' work done. So as a measure if what an engine can do it is far more meaningful that torque, which alone is absolutely meaningless in terms of performance. I'm sure you know all this, so perhaps a little disingenuous in your explanation eh?
Let's say I put my monster 4' long torque wrench onto the axle nut of the rear wheel and put in 120ft/lb torque. Now apart from over-torquing the nut I'm doing no work. So let's say I hang a 30lb weight off the end of my 4' wrench so there's still 120ft/lb being applied and I go in for a cup of tea. There's still no work being done. Lets say I leave it for a week. There's still no work being done. So a figure of 120ft/lb tells us absolutely nothing about performance.
Now let's consider a motorcycle and imagine that in round figures the rear wheel takes 8 feet travelled for 1 revolution...so 660 revolutions to go 1 mile. So at 60mph the rear wheel is rotates 39,000 times in the hour, or 660 times in a minute - 660rpm.
With this theoretical wheel size, and ignoring transmission losses, friction etc., I'm chugging along on my Indian at 3000rpm, where it should indeed be able to make 120ft/lb. Enough to blow off any upstart sportsbike with puny sub 100ft/lb torque eh?
OK, so we know reduction gearboxes are torque multipliers right? If we reduce the output shaft speed by 50% (with the caveats above) the torque is double that of the input shaft. We can feel that in practice with things like winches, where a small amount of human effort over lots of turns ends up pulling a massive weight over a smaller distance. And of course gearboxes, where we know first gear puts our more torque (and less speed) than second, and so on.
So my Indian in the example above has its 3000rpm crank speed reduced to the 660 rpm at the back wheel, so a factor of about 4.5, so the torque my back wheel can exert at 60mph is about 540ft/lb. Woe betide anything sporty coming up along side
But wait a minute, here's Freddy Fireblade, and he's also doing 60, but he can only make 80ft/lb at the crank
....but he's making it at 8000rpm His back wheel is going round at the same speed, and so to gear down his 8000rpm crank speed to 660rpm is a factor of 12, and so his 80ft/lb torque is multiplied to 960ft/lb. Which is 75% more than I'm making on the bagger, and so not surprisingly he can leave me in the dust
.So here we have a 120ft/lb bike, and a 80ft/lb bike and the simplified maths backs up the real world experience that a Fireblade is quicker than an Indian Chief.
And so what have the torque figures alone told us? Well, in isolation, absolutely nothing. Torque only makes sense in work/performance comparisons when we consider the rpm that that torque is delivered at (for shaft output). So we need some torque x RPM measure so we can compare things. It so happens bhp is already there as a measure, being torque (ft/lb) x rpm / 5252. We can argue the divide by 5252 is pretty arbitrary other than it makes the results smaller numbers. But nevertheless is give us a mechanism of comparing the relative powers, and hence likely performance, of engines in a way that torque alone simply cannot.
There's so much talk in the bar of 'torque winning races' etc., but that's misguided at best, if not actually plain wrong. Traction engines deliver massive torque, but you don't see them down the local drag strip as (ignoring weight) they make it at far too low an rpm. If you can do some mods to double the torque of your engine at a certain speed, then great, you'll sure feel that. But presuming you've got a gearbox, keeping the same torque but delivering it at twice the rpm will give you the same benefit.
So on the Tuscan with the LS engine, we got more power and better performance by a bigger cam and other goodies that brought the torque figures higher up the rev range. Now as a result it made the car just about undrivable at low speeds, but that's a lesson for another day - "big cams for high speed running, and why they're cr@p at low RPMs"
But of course in riding/driving there's a certain pleasure to be had with massive torque low in the rev range, which is why I ride an 1800cc V-twin (and drive 5.7L V8, or a 6.3L V8. I'll ignore the 4.2L V8 as that's revvier and a different kind of fun). I love rolling open the throttle at 1200rpm and just have the thing pull loud and strong. But it's no racer. Someone making a fraction of my torque, but making it at many times the rpm has the faster bike. End of. And we can make that assessment before even throwing our legs across the saddle based on power-BHP-and never by torque alone.
So, unless I really misunderstood the points you were trying to put across, then sure you're not smug, but then again neither are you correct
Edited by tvrolet on Friday 21st October 11:54
You're right that bhp is an expression of work done. But your analogy is a little off. Hanging a 10 ft bar on a fixed item quite correctly achieves no work regardless of how much weight you apply. But an engine's output isn't against a fixed or imovable load.. only once the crank can exert sufficient torque to overcome the resistance do we have work. But you know that
But to your wider point, I specifically avoided any references to gearboxes, , which as you rightly say are torque multipliers.
My point was that an engine produces a rotational output. We measure this in units of torque. That's the primary unit of measure.
To achieve this number, a multitude of factors conspire to determine the point of peak efficiency, the point of max torque. As said, bore, stroke and so on. Now an engine with a certain configuration will achieve its peak number at a point in the rev range, lets say 12000. Considering that peak torque is achieved at 12000, it's blindingly obvious that the peak bhp will be a function of 12000.
Now given the huge rpm range of a modern motorcycle engine, the engine parameters decided on to give a broad spread of torque across that range may actually inhibit the engines ability to ingest the necessary air to support the continued propogation of power at higher rpm. Engine designs can and do create choking or suffocation at higer than peak torque which we all know and feel.
Now if we want to raise the engines ability to rev, lets say to 14000, we need to make fundamental changes to the overal configuration of the engine which in turn have knock on effects to is power characteristics. Typically, the higher you push the peak torque in an engines rev range, the steeper it drops away either side due to the mechanical necessities of feeding the engine sufficient quantities of fuel and air to support the power. Not surprisingly air flow demand rises. But if the 2nd engines peak torque is delivered at 13800, doesn't take a genius to figure that the bhp number will be higher.
So if we take these 2 engines and run them on a dyno, each connected to an identical fixed and equal load, the 12k engine will make more bhp across the rev range until the point of peak torque is passed. Then we'll see a diminishing value on the 12k engine whilst the torque (and effective bhp) are still rising for the 14k engine.
But, whereas the 12k engine runs out of steam and possibility suffocates above its peak point of efficiency, the 14k engine is still going. Yes, for the majority of the preceding rev range it may have lagged behind the 12k engine in outright power, but its ability to keep revving, and doing work, allows it to achieve a higher peak bhp number purely as a function of its ability to rev.
But the real point is where one engine revs to 12k and chokes and the other revs to 14k, you'll see a marked difference in performance. But if both engines rev to 14k and the peak difference is 10bhp, it's really not worth considering. A good real world example is the comparison between an IL4 and a big v twin. At lower rpms where the v twin is closer to its peak, it will out accelerate the IL4 if both are at the same respective point intheir total rpm bands. ie, % of total available. Obviously.
Howevr, if, we now start adding gear ratios and weight, especially reciprocating, everything changes. If an engine that has less peak bhp has less mass to move, especially reciprocal mass to overcome, it will be as fast or faster than the more powerful bike having more bhp (torque) at most points thro the rev range than the theoretically more powrful in peak terms engine. If you remove the vagaries of gearbox and external parasitic losses, for 2 engines that rev to 14k, the one with the higer numbers through the rev range will be quickest to accerleate a constant load even if it cedes an eventual10 bhp at the top of the rev range. Seems blindingly obvious I know.
As for bhp being a nonsensical value, I agree with you to a point. But when it's very derivation is based upon torque, its an arbitrary measurement at best. And for the avoidance of any confusion, both should only be considered at the crank.....
Not intending to be disingenuous in any way but as we know, there's a whole lot more to performance than an arbitrary bhp number.
Steve Bass said:
To achieve this number, a multitude of factors conspire to determine the point of peak efficiency, the point of max torque. As said, bore, stroke and so on. Now an engine with a certain configuration will achieve its peak number at a point in the rev range, lets say 12000. Considering that peak torque is achieved at 12000, it's blindingly obvious that the peak bhp will be a function of 12000.
No it's not! Lets say the engine can create its peak torque of 80ft/lb at 12,000 rpm just as you say..so 182bhp.
But at 14,000rpm it's still making useful torque of 75ft/lb...so 5ft/lb short of its peak, but at this point it's making 200bhp.
Now feel free to correct me, but isn't 200 a bigger number than 182? And I'm hard pressed to see now how 200bhp is in any way related to the peak torque rpm of 12,000 as you suggest it should be?
It's not a function of 12,000 at all now, is it?
Steve Bass in the previous post said:
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.
Wrong again I'm afraid. Only if the torque stays constant. If in the example above the bike continue to rev to 16,000 and at this point makes 50ft/lb it's only making 152bhp.
Where did your "the higher you rev, the more bhp you make" assertion go?
Steve Bass said:
Not intending to be disingenuous in any way but as we know, there's a whole lot more to performance than an arbitrary bhp number.
There is certainly more to performance than bhp, but your assertion that BHP is an arbitrary number is plainly incorrect...unless you're just being pedantic on why divide by 5252 as opposed to any other number. bhp has the key calculation of torque x rpm, and without knowing the rpm, simply knowing or quoting the torque has no value whatsoever. Period.
tvrolet said:
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.
While what you're saying re torque is correct, I can't really agree bhp is nonsense or just a 'fabricated figure'. Fabricated maybe in terms of units, but no less so that 'foot' in torque being the length of a man's foot. 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.
BHP is a measure of power' work done. So as a measure if what an engine can do it is far more meaningful that torque, which alone is absolutely meaningless in terms of performance. I'm sure you know all this, so perhaps a little disingenuous in your explanation eh?
Let's say I put my monster 4' long torque wrench onto the axle nut of the rear wheel and put in 120ft/lb torque. Now apart from over-torquing the nut I'm doing no work. So let's say I hang a 30lb weight off the end of my 4' wrench so there's still 120ft/lb being applied and I go in for a cup of tea. There's still no work being done. Lets say I leave it for a week. There's still no work being done. So a figure of 120ft/lb tells us absolutely nothing about performance.
Now let's consider a motorcycle and imagine that in round figures the rear wheel takes 8 feet travelled for 1 revolution...so 660 revolutions to go 1 mile. So at 60mph the rear wheel is rotates 39,000 times in the hour, or 660 times in a minute - 660rpm.
With this theoretical wheel size, and ignoring transmission losses, friction etc., I'm chugging along on my Indian at 3000rpm, where it should indeed be able to make 120ft/lb. Enough to blow off any upstart sportsbike with puny sub 100ft/lb torque eh?
OK, so we know reduction gearboxes are torque multipliers right? If we reduce the output shaft speed by 50% (with the caveats above) the torque is double that of the input shaft. We can feel that in practice with things like winches, where a small amount of human effort over lots of turns ends up pulling a massive weight over a smaller distance. And of course gearboxes, where we know first gear puts our more torque (and less speed) than second, and so on.
So my Indian in the example above has its 3000rpm crank speed reduced to the 660 rpm at the back wheel, so a factor of about 4.5, so the torque my back wheel can exert at 60mph is about 540ft/lb. Woe betide anything sporty coming up along side
But wait a minute, here's Freddy Fireblade, and he's also doing 60, but he can only make 80ft/lb at the crank
....but he's making it at 8000rpm His back wheel is going round at the same speed, and so to gear down his 8000rpm crank speed to 660rpm is a factor of 12, and so his 80ft/lb torque is multiplied to 960ft/lb. Which is 75% more than I'm making on the bagger, and so not surprisingly he can leave me in the dust
.So here we have a 120ft/lb bike, and a 80ft/lb bike and the simplified maths backs up the real world experience that a Fireblade is quicker than an Indian Chief.
And so what have the torque figures alone told us? Well, in isolation, absolutely nothing. Torque only makes sense in work/performance comparisons when we consider the rpm that that torque is delivered at (for shaft output). So we need some torque x RPM measure so we can compare things. It so happens bhp is already there as a measure, being torque (ft/lb) x rpm / 5252. We can argue the divide by 5252 is pretty arbitrary other than it makes the results smaller numbers. But nevertheless is give us a mechanism of comparing the relative powers, and hence likely performance, of engines in a way that torque alone simply cannot.
There's so much talk in the bar of 'torque winning races' etc., but that's misguided at best, if not actually plain wrong. Traction engines deliver massive torque, but you don't see them down the local drag strip as (ignoring weight) they make it at far too low an rpm. If you can do some mods to double the torque of your engine at a certain speed, then great, you'll sure feel that. But presuming you've got a gearbox, keeping the same torque but delivering it at twice the rpm will give you the same benefit.
So on the Tuscan with the LS engine, we got more power and better performance by a bigger cam and other goodies that brought the torque figures higher up the rev range. Now as a result it made the car just about undrivable at low speeds, but that's a lesson for another day - "big cams for high speed running, and why they're cr@p at low RPMs"
But of course in riding/driving there's a certain pleasure to be had with massive torque low in the rev range, which is why I ride an 1800cc V-twin (and drive 5.7L V8, or a 6.3L V8. I'll ignore the 4.2L V8 as that's revvier and a different kind of fun). I love rolling open the throttle at 1200rpm and just have the thing pull loud and strong. But it's no racer. Someone making a fraction of my torque, but making it at many times the rpm has the faster bike. End of. And we can make that assessment before even throwing our legs across the saddle based on power-BHP-and never by torque alone.
So, unless I really misunderstood the points you were trying to put across, then sure you're not smug, but then again neither are you correct
Edited by tvrolet on Friday 21st October 11:54
t out of it - thanks. It also warms me that you like power. Finally - dynojet dynos give me a warm fuzzy feeling with their numbers - especially as ChipChap says if you put the ambient temp sensor under your armpit blade7 said:
3DP said:
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.
Not in Slick Mode, which is how I usually run mine on the road. Not because I fancy myself as some road racer, purely because the Anti wheelie makes it feel broken otherwise. t in the beginning. Basically - if it's truly passive - which active slide control must be and you can turn anti wheelie off, then it's a winner. Anything with over about 120bhp is all down to rider on the road anyway - both in skill and what risks they are prepared to take.Renn Sport said:
Fair enough...
I guess I must not like the look of the Fireblade stat sheet. Prefer the R1 stat sheet.
I also don't like the upper fairing bolts on front cowl on the Fireblade.
Also I wonder if the ABS will have that special pull back to the bar feature Honda built into the current model?
C-ABS was heavy, sI guess I must not like the look of the Fireblade stat sheet. Prefer the R1 stat sheet.
I also don't like the upper fairing bolts on front cowl on the Fireblade.
Also I wonder if the ABS will have that special pull back to the bar feature Honda built into the current model?
t and expensive - that's why I bought mine without. New one will be competitive and light.Look - the only dig I think various are having is that you've dismissed a bike before it's been tested as s
te as it's 10bhp down and on grounds that show a bit ill informed - you've then dismissed people who know stuff that may help shape a better informed view. Subjective and objective views are fine as long as from a sound base. It's lighter and torquier than the competition, it will have the same or better electronics. It will not be the most characterful 1000, but it will do 100k miles without a rebuild and flatter your riding. It will have that Honda rightness. Anyone aged 45 to 55 will hate it because they grew up on a diet of s
te 2 stroke bikes with a tuning fork logo It will be the bestest on the road and likely the most comfy along with the S1KRR. I'm not convinced they will sell like hotcakes, but neither will they sell badly. The S1KRR seriously steps on Hondas 'all rounder' superbike toes along with all the other positives from BM ownership. They are not well finished though. Yamaha have built a Ducati and Ducati have priced themselves into VAG PCP only La-La land. Suzuki - a curve ball. Kawasaki - just look at it... no thanks. Aprilia? They apparently make a great V4 no-one wants to buy. Lots of choice - none of them a bad one.
I look forward to the reviews and fully intend to keep my analogue 2015 model.
Edited by 3DP on Friday 21st October 17:37
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff