So, pros and cons between, say an R1 and a V twin...
Discussion
Andy OH said:
Nick,
If you go for a twin you'll always be thinking I should have got the R1
Go with what you have been saying for a while R1...R1...R1...
and also get some Akrapovics for it then, they sound lovely 
Yup. I learned this the hard way.If you go for a twin you'll always be thinking I should have got the R1
Go with what you have been saying for a while R1...R1...R1... and also get some Akrapovics for it then, they sound lovely Edited by Andy OH on Wednesday 13th June 09:52
ducatis are a con!
I'd never pay that much more for half the number of cylinders over a top rice burner. That said the racing record speaks for itself so if just lapping fast is all that counts then a duc or aprillia is undeniably effective. the rough, lumpy and linear power delivery is thought to make the back wheel 'stutter' out of corners which helps traction. The jap 4's are so much smoother and exponential in power delviery, it's easier to spin up the rears. the 'big bang' firing order was used in moto gp in the 500 2 stroke era to achieve a similar result at the expense of ultimate top end power (the 500s had too much of that anyway). I'm told they started experimenting with lumpy firing orders on the 990 four stroke moto gp bikes too - but that's when they started sounding crappy.
a v-twin usually allows the bike to be narrower which presumably should offer some advantages in terms of lean angle and ease of moving around the bike. Personally I never had a problem with the lean angle on the latest jap fours. There's no doubt a ducati on the track is superb. But I think the jap fours are also superb on track and more fun on the road because of the sound they make. The v-twins flat drone just doesn't do it for me but I appreciate that for many it does.
I'd never pay that much more for half the number of cylinders over a top rice burner. That said the racing record speaks for itself so if just lapping fast is all that counts then a duc or aprillia is undeniably effective. the rough, lumpy and linear power delivery is thought to make the back wheel 'stutter' out of corners which helps traction. The jap 4's are so much smoother and exponential in power delviery, it's easier to spin up the rears. the 'big bang' firing order was used in moto gp in the 500 2 stroke era to achieve a similar result at the expense of ultimate top end power (the 500s had too much of that anyway). I'm told they started experimenting with lumpy firing orders on the 990 four stroke moto gp bikes too - but that's when they started sounding crappy.
a v-twin usually allows the bike to be narrower which presumably should offer some advantages in terms of lean angle and ease of moving around the bike. Personally I never had a problem with the lean angle on the latest jap fours. There's no doubt a ducati on the track is superb. But I think the jap fours are also superb on track and more fun on the road because of the sound they make. The v-twins flat drone just doesn't do it for me but I appreciate that for many it does.
Looked at logically, it’s hard to understand why anyone would buy a V-twin. As standard, they typically make less power, don’t rev as high and use lots more fuel. The Italian ones cost a fortune to run, buy and insure. in my experience, there is little to choose between them in terms of reliability, provided they are properly maintained
Fortunately bikes (and particularly sports bikes) are chosen emotionally, not logically.
You really need to ride a well set-up twin, to see if it’s for you. Personally, I will have a 916 type Ducati for as long as I can ride one. What is more, I am quicker, more comfortable and more confident on the Duke than any of the current crop of litre bikes.
A couple of points about twins that are often overlooked.
1. Tank range is normally pretty hopeless, the fuel light on my Ducati comes on at less than 100 miles. So no use as a commuter.
2. Your throttle control will improve, how much largely depends on how good it it at the moment, but it will get better, although you may only notice the improvement, when you get back on a four.
Finally, the very high power outputs of the latest fours can be slightly intimidating, making you a little late and a little too cautious with the gas. Over time this can really mess with your cornering.
Fortunately bikes (and particularly sports bikes) are chosen emotionally, not logically.
You really need to ride a well set-up twin, to see if it’s for you. Personally, I will have a 916 type Ducati for as long as I can ride one. What is more, I am quicker, more comfortable and more confident on the Duke than any of the current crop of litre bikes.
A couple of points about twins that are often overlooked.
1. Tank range is normally pretty hopeless, the fuel light on my Ducati comes on at less than 100 miles. So no use as a commuter.
2. Your throttle control will improve, how much largely depends on how good it it at the moment, but it will get better, although you may only notice the improvement, when you get back on a four.
Finally, the very high power outputs of the latest fours can be slightly intimidating, making you a little late and a little too cautious with the gas. Over time this can really mess with your cornering.
MTBR said:
Looked at logically, it’s hard to understand why anyone would buy a V-twin. As standard, they typically make less power, don’t rev as high and use lots more fuel. The Italian ones cost a fortune to run, buy and insure. in my experience, there is little to choose between them in terms of reliability, provided they are properly maintained
Fortunately bikes (and particularly sports bikes) are chosen emotionally, not logically.
You really need to ride a well set-up twin, to see if it’s for you. Personally, I will have a 916 type Ducati for as long as I can ride one. What is more, I am quicker, more comfortable and more confident on the Duke than any of the current crop of litre bikes.
A couple of points about twins that are often overlooked.
1. Tank range is normally pretty hopeless, the fuel light on my Ducati comes on at less than 100 miles. So no use as a commuter.
2. Your throttle control will improve, how much largely depends on how good it it at the moment, but it will get better, although you may only notice the improvement, when you get back on a four.
Finally, the very high power outputs of the latest fours can be slightly intimidating, making you a little late and a little too cautious with the gas. Over time this can really mess with your cornering.
I’m not sure I’d totally agree with your ‘logical’ argument. As most of us use our bikes for road use most often, how often do we really get to use all the top end power of any litre bike? (twin, triple or four). ‘Logically’ the low and mid range grunt from a twin is much more usable’ on public roads than the top end power of a four. That makes twins easier to ride quickly, especially on roads you don’t know, if not ultimately as fast as a four. Horses for courses.Fortunately bikes (and particularly sports bikes) are chosen emotionally, not logically.
You really need to ride a well set-up twin, to see if it’s for you. Personally, I will have a 916 type Ducati for as long as I can ride one. What is more, I am quicker, more comfortable and more confident on the Duke than any of the current crop of litre bikes.
A couple of points about twins that are often overlooked.
1. Tank range is normally pretty hopeless, the fuel light on my Ducati comes on at less than 100 miles. So no use as a commuter.
2. Your throttle control will improve, how much largely depends on how good it it at the moment, but it will get better, although you may only notice the improvement, when you get back on a four.
Finally, the very high power outputs of the latest fours can be slightly intimidating, making you a little late and a little too cautious with the gas. Over time this can really mess with your cornering.
Edited by black-k1 on Wednesday 13th June 10:42
Indeed, the noise is addictive on a twin but its very subjective. I have race cans on the Falco (essentially a Mille with different plastics, apologies if that's stating the obvious!) and the sound is awesome!
As has been said, very easy to ride fast - serious amounts of torque from about 4k rpm upwards. There's no sense of having to wait for the power to come - its just there and it keeps coming all the way to the shift light.
I don't know about this tank range nonsense, I've been getting 120/140 to the fuel light on my quick weekend rideouts... which is awesome considering on the Hornet its been known to conk out at 79 miles before I have to switch to reserve!!
As has been said, very easy to ride fast - serious amounts of torque from about 4k rpm upwards. There's no sense of having to wait for the power to come - its just there and it keeps coming all the way to the shift light.
I don't know about this tank range nonsense, I've been getting 120/140 to the fuel light on my quick weekend rideouts... which is awesome considering on the Hornet its been known to conk out at 79 miles before I have to switch to reserve!!
hornetrider said:
I don't know about this tank range nonsense, I've been getting 120/140 to the fuel light on my quick weekend rideouts
But the previous poster was talking about tank range of his 916. He wasn't saying it was a general low-mpg twin thing.In fact, Ducatis are actually known for achieving some pretty good mpg - like 50mpg on average.
Chilli said:
I know the twins have the torque throughout the range, but any other pro's and con's to lead me one way or the other??
Corrected.It is true that big V2s have loads of torque but it is a misconception that they have more torque than a 1000cc IL4.
They produce it at lower revs and the delivery is very linear - ie you get a similar shove at 4000rpm as you do at 6000rpm. There isn't that feeling of rubber-band performance you get on a four, as the revs rise.
But big fours have plenty of torque in the mid range and the gearing of them (105mph in first for R1) means second or third gives loads of go in the road.
Twins are renown for making softer and less frequent power pulses which give tyres an easier time exiting corners. In my humble real world, this makes little difference!!!
Edited to add, big Jap fours are like jet turbines whereas big twins are more emotive - they resonate through you and feel like a hearbeat.
Edited by rsv gone! on Wednesday 13th June 11:49
Ok, but bearing in mind I can't (and don't really want to) go much faster on the road than I do already, and want to do so many more track days, I wonder if I should stick with the R6...just get a new one.
The thought of opening the throttle and spinning the rear scares me to be honest!
The thought of opening the throttle and spinning the rear scares me to be honest!
Chilli said:
Ok, but bearing in mind I can't (and don't really want to) go much faster on the road than I do already, and want to do so many more track days, I wonder if I should stick with the R6...just get a new one.
The thought of opening the throttle and spinning the rear scares me to be honest!
.... or keep the R6 as a track tool and buy a big twin for road use! Best of both worlds!The thought of opening the throttle and spinning the rear scares me to be honest!
Chilli said:
Ok, but bearing in mind I can't (and don't really want to) go much faster on the road than I do already, and want to do so many more track days, I wonder if I should stick with the R6...just get a new one.
The thought of opening the throttle and spinning the rear scares me to be honest!
Stick with the R6 whilst you get used to riding on track The thought of opening the throttle and spinning the rear scares me to be honest!
Why would you get a new one though ?
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff