Is more power better?

I read an interesting article involving the Yamaha R6 and usable power.  A group of 20 riders were assembled to ride two R6’s.  One was stock and the other de-tuned for a more powerful midrange.  One R6 was de-tuned to get as close to the specs on the FZR600.  Smaller throttle bodies (36mm vs 40mm), grinded the cams to match the profile of the FZR 600, Dynojet Power Commander and a smaller font sprocket.  It sounded like mother to accomplish.

The goal was to improve the midrange although top speed would have to be sacrificed.  

Some of the results were expected.  The detuned R6 made 100bhp@12,200 rpm vs 104bhp @12,900 on the stock.

Interesting to me are the performance numbers:
0-60mph= 3.66 stock vs 3.93 detuned
40-80mph= 9.65 stock vs 7.05 detuned
40-120 mph= 19.70 stock   14.55 detuned
Quarter Mile= 11.7 @ 124mph stock vs 11.9 @ 122mph detuned
Top Speed 151 mph stock vs 148 mph detuned


Apparently 18 of the 20 riders preferred the de-tuned R6 and thought it was felt faster, pulling harder in the midrange.  Spending most of my time on the street I think a detuned bike would better serve my use.  Do you think that a sportbike purposely built for a strong midrange would sell more units than a bike tuned for the track?  

I don't know if one is better than the other, it would just be speculation on my part. What I can tell you is that a detuned/retuned R6 that is "purposely built for a strong midrange" Would  not sell more units than a bike tuned for the track. Mostly because many people buy sport bikes based on peak power and magazine shootout results, and run for the hills when things are "detuned for midrange". If you want a good street 600, buy the YZF600R, it's a lot cheaper anyway.

Incidentally, the R6 was a good choice for them to conduct this "experiment". It has a noticible dip in power in the mid-range. The R6 would benenfit much more than the others from this mod.  

Quote:

---

Interesting to me are the performance numbers:
0-60mph= 3.66 stock vs 3.93 detuned
40-80mph= 9.65 stock vs 7.05 detuned
40-120 mph= 19.70 stock   14.55 detuned

---

Quote:

---

Apparently 18 of the 20 riders preferred the de-tuned R6 and thought it was felt faster, pulling harder in the midrange.

---

Quote:

---

Spending most of my time on the street I think a detuned bike would better serve my use.

---

Quote:

---

Do you think that a sportbike purposely built for a strong midrange would sell more units than a bike tuned for the track?

---

A couple of years ago we did  Middleweights in Real Life, a test of the YZF600R and ZX-6E (ZZR600 the last couple of years). As part of that we briefly compared the YZF and ZX-6E to the R6 and ZX-6R.

Check out this dyno chart:



AT  

Yeah, I remember that article.

The one that Spenc is referring to seems a bit suspect though. The more I read his post, the more I feel like I'm missing something. It seems like an awful lot of work to achieve something nobody really wants. If you are willing to spend that kind of money, and go to the trouble of re-tuning an R6 to be more tuned for street, I'd think you'd want the ergo's to go with it. That's like retuning a Porche twin turbo for fuel economy and adding a trailer for the kid's sports equiptment.  

Yeah, that is a lot of work for marginal performance 'gains'.  

Tho, I agree, power, particularly in street riding, isn't everything.  It may sound odd to some, but the Concours (with the right boingers) can be ridden fairly quickly in twisty stuff, and when I do, I rarely shift beyond 6.5k rpm (about 95 in 6th gear) and it's typically plenty of juice to get moving.  So, it's putting down, what maybe 70hp or so at that engine speed?  Just a guess.  On a 600lb (bone friggin' dry) bike.  So, for spirited street riding at a moderately sane pace doesn't require much power really.  

Quote:

---

If you are willing to spend that kind of money, and go to the trouble of re-tuning an R6 to be more tuned for street, I'd think you'd want the ergo's to go with it.  

---

also people would buy more 600rs if they werent so ugly. people will take looks over comfort in most cases, except for the few true who dont care. but in most cases bikes are bought soley on looks and peak hp output. if they made the 600r look better more people would buy it and use it for the street. but since its so ugly we buy the better looking one and suffer through any minor discomforts.  

I doubt that a bike's styling really plays that big of a purchasing role, since it's such a subjective opinion. Take a look at the Hayabusa; everyone blasted Suzuki when it was unveiled, declaring it was butt-ugly and that they'd never buy it-- yet look at it now, surviving quite well 8 years later. Or the Terblanche Ducati 749/999; despite all the disparaging remarks about their appearance, I see quite a few of them every day on the street.  

Honda has been successful selling bikes with less than competitive power.  Look at the 1000RR vs the more powerful GSXR 1K, ZX10R, and R1.  

Quote:

---

That's the reason for the YZF600R's existence, but no one wants it because it's not the latest/greatest.
Hardly anyone ever buys something they actually need; they always buy what they delude themselves into believing they need. Which is why marketing is so effective with the general public...

---

So... what you're saying is Suzuki should change their GSX-R1000 ad where it says, "If you don't win, it's your fault" to "If you can't ride, it's your fault"?

Or if I buy a CBR600RR, am I not really riding the bike that finished 1-2-3 at the Daytona 200 this year?

 

Quote:

---

Or if I buy a CBR600RR, am I not really riding the bike that finished 1-2-3 at the Daytona 200 this year?

---

Heh, yep, and has won every single AMA Formula Xtreme race. My God, what a feat...  

I think more power is better for the ego! Nuff said!  

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If you are willing to spend that kind of money, and go to the trouble of re-tuning an R6 to be more tuned for street, I'd think you'd want the ergo's to go with it.  

---

That's the reason for the YZF600R's existence, but no one wants it because it's not the latest/greatest.
Hardly anyone ever buys something they actually need; they always buy what they delude themselves into believing they need. Which is why marketing is so effective with the general public...

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If you are willing to spend that kind of money, and go to the trouble of re-tuning an R6 to be more tuned for street, I'd think you'd want the ergo's to go with it.  

---

That's the reason for the YZF600R's existence, but no one wants it because it's not the latest/greatest.
Hardly anyone ever buys something they actually need; they always buy what they delude themselves into believing they need. Which is why marketing is so effective with the general public...

---

now dont say that no one wants that bike.  I wanted that bike, its just that the F4i beat it out in comfort.  That and I got a great deal on it.  I just felt too big on the YZF600R.  
But more power is good in places but unless you're taking the bike to the track it isnt needed.  hell the f4i tears it up at the track let alone my Xr250 supermotarded...

---