Is more power better?

I dont ride twins so i was kinda pulling the rpm numbers out my ass. but yea i know there raced. its just when you think of twins you think of usable horse power and torque. and you think of how its not geared tall as hell. ive always thought of them as real world bikes. because they put the power out when you need it. and you dont need to wind it like hell to get some decent torque. which i guess why alot of people street litre bikes rather than 600s. in my eyes though the only place twins performance really come to mind is the drag strip where of course torque is king. but there are always exceptions. like the tlr and rc51, tuono, ducati, etc.  

Quote:

---

in my eyes though the only place twins performance really come to mind is the drag strip where of course torque is king. but there are always exceptions. like the tlr and rc51, tuono, ducati, etc.

---

yea a litre bike will kill most twins at the strip. but a decent built twin has pretty good torque. especialy where you need it at the strip. im not saying twins are the best for the strip. just that in my opinion thats the only place in racing that they fit. (when it comes to harleys and those other companies that only make cruisers.) this is a stereotype but it was true till recently, that twins arent handlers. and that was mostly  cause twins were only used in cruisers which arent exactly built for handling. thats changed now. im just saying when i think twin i think real world performance. (commuting and street riding) which is why i like the buel. the firebolt is nice to ride. and handles the stop and go low speed [censored] easy.  

Quote:

---

Good lord.  The original post was about a detuned R6 for more midrange.  When did this turn into a pissing contest on which is better a V-Twin or Inline-4.  Everybody likes different bikes for different reasons.  Just leave it at that.  This like what is better "chicken or chicken?"

---

Quote:

---

Than a contemporary 1000cc inline four? No. Torque from an 1000cc four like the GSX-R1000 or ZX-10R is equal to if not superior to a v-twin.

Better is subjective. V-twins do feel different in how they put power to pavement. For most, they do engender a sense of being more tractable than an inline-four but it's one of those things that you either like, don't like or don't care one way or another because they all have 2 wheels.

---

  wheelspin posted some numbers (that can be found in all the magazines) showing that the liter bike kill the XB12 in top gear rollons confirming TEvo's initial statement.  mcrides posted some stuff....  I posted my own experiences/observations on my ZX-10.  And then bleedgreen posted some nonsense that I tore apart.    That about sums it up.    I did try to get back on topic at the end of it...  

I still say that the detuned R6 wasn't worth the effort that was put into it.  Lets see the dyno charts.  Unless you can show a bump in bottom and mid-range power, I have to agree with wheelspin that the acceleration numbers are due to the gearing.  Change the gearing on a stock R6 to match the detuned bike, and use a power comander to tweak the FI of the stock bike.  Even stock bikes can use a little FI work now a days, since they are set up to meet noise and emissions standards.  Then rerun the test.

For smaller displacement bikes, a twin is probably better since it'll have more omph down low where a mutli needs to spin up.  But for an open class bike it doesn't matter.  Twin, triple, 4, you have power everywhere.  


Chris  

Quote:

---

Might want to head to your local news stand and check out a couple of recent magazines that have done large multiple bike handling tests...

Including this one that's online from Performance Bikes magazine...

So these compromises when it comes to carving corners definately wouldn't be instability, lack of confidence or being too slow around corners....

---

Quote:

---

I still say that the detuned R6 wasn't worth the effort that was put into it.  Lets see the dyno charts.  Unless you can show a bump in bottom and mid-range power, I have to agree with wheelspin that the acceleration numbers are due to the gearing.  Change the gearing on a stock R6 to match the detuned bike, and use a power comander to tweak the FI of the stock bike.  Even stock bikes can use a little FI work now a days, since they are set up to meet noise and emissions standards.  Then rerun the test.

---

Here is the dyno from the magazine.  Unfortunately I don’t have a scanner and had to improvise with my digital camera.  


In the article (BIKE Magazine, a British publication) the writers said
” What we get is staggering: peak torque is lower- and peak power, too.  And the modified R6 makes more where it counts- at 8000 rpm the new motor makes 13.4 per cent more power and 14.8 per cent more torque than the stock bike. .”

When I originally posted this, I was thinking more along the lines of the manufacturers developing a sportbike (sex appeal) with these characteristics for the daily commuter.  

Nice red X.  

Accutally, I cut and pasted the URL of the red x and saw the dyno chart.  It does look like they made the R6 more streetable.  There is a pretty good gap between the hp and torque curves for both R6's.  I think it is funny that they included an FZR600 on the graph (a bike that isn't made any more) instead of the YZF600R.  I am sold on the idea.  It certainly looks like a promissing idea for a smaller displacement bike.  I'd still like to see them regear the stock R6 though and redo the performance numbers and the comparison....  Gearing can have a pretty big effect.  I wonder how the detuned bikes would sell, and would there be any price difference given that they look the same?  A number of people complain about having a detuned R1 motor in the FZ1...

Kawasaki is in a way already doing something like this.  They offer the ZX-6RR which doesn't seem too practicle on the street with it's low gearing and 16,500 rpm red line.  The ZX-6R has a few more cc and looks to be geared better.  And then there is also the ZZR600 which should have a slight street advantage over the newer racier bikes.  And Yamaha looks to be doing something similar in '06 with its new R6 (17,500 rpm!!), R6S (which is the current R6), and the YZF600R.

Maybe the dyno chart will change some oppinions like it did me.  


Chris  

Quote:

---

And they said it had great feedback from the front forks.

---

Quote:

---

Too many compramises when it comes to carving corners, I think not.  Too many compramises when it comes to racing against motorcycles outside it's class with liquid cooled motors or high revving DOHC I4s, thats something completely different (like trying to race a RS125 against a 600, completely different classes).

---

Quote:

---

A lot of people who race XBs keep the "inferior brakes" and racings not cheap so it's not like they don't have the money to upgrade or anything. Theres also been a couple world stoppie records set with these "inferior brakes."

---

Quote:

---

Narrow powerband, not really.  It's got great torque downlow and the power builds all the way to redline

---

Quote:

---

its a v-twin you're not gonna get a peaky I4 punch..

---

Quote:

---

not like that has anything to do with it's ability to "carve corners" anyway)

---

Quote:

---

One of the things BIKE magazine specifically said about the XB12R is that it was nice that you didn't have downshift all the time to get good drive out of the corners.

---

Quote:

---

Please spare us the typical buell bashing and the bs about a XB having compromises when it comes to carving corners since multiple mainstream bike magazines have listed it as one of the best cornering bikes out there.

---

Two British magazines from the same publishing company does not define "multiple mainstream bike magazines" to me. But that's just me.
Sigh....Like I said before: I'm not "Buell Bashing" (I take it you didn't read the last part of my previous reply); I'm only refuting the BS and misinformation being spread here.
And now back to your regularly scheduled topic....  

Boy, these posts are getting pretty big...

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I can't speak for those who race the XBs with the rim-brake. And what do stoppies have to do with "carving corners"?

---

I was commenting on your comment about the XB's "inferior brakes", and to do 800ft+ stoppies you kinda need decent brakes....

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Uh huh...a redline at what, 7500 rpm? Meanwhile a literbike pulls to um....13,000 rpm. I'd call that a narrow powerband.

---

Uh huh...making good power throughout 85% of it's rev range, yep it definately has the powerband of a RS50

---

Compared to a literbike, sure.  

Quote:

---

If you think I started this thread you need to reread the whole thing from the begining.

---

Never said you did. All I was doing was asking why?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Uh, I don't know about you, but I like to accelerate off the corner...

---

Well if you took off your buell bashing blinders you'd appreciate it's the good amount of torque it has across it's wide powerband.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

One of the things BIKE magazine specifically said about the XB12R is that it was nice that you didn't have downshift all the time to get good drive out of the corners.

---

Who said anything about downshifting with a literbike? Leave it in one gear if you like. It still goes....

---

You said a XB12 has a narrow powerband, BIKE mag. says its powerband is so wide that you needn't worry about downshifting.

---

Sorry for the not being more specific, I meant it has a narrow powerband compared to a literbike.

Quote:

---

Performance Bikes and BIKE magazines were just the two I've listed (other mags have done other tests as well), forgive me for not having an archieve of all motorcycle magazines at my disposal...how silly of me.  There have been PLENTY of magazines that praise the XBs handling "when it comes to carving corners."  I'm only refuting the BS and misinformation being spread here.

---

You said the two magazines were an example that the "mainstream" motorcycle press said the Buell was the best handling bike ever. Hey, I never said the Buell was a POS that doesn't handle well and can't get out of its own way (although yeah, I guess the "sundial-rivaling" was a bit harsh...just a joke to get peeps worked up). I think they're fun bikes to ride, and as I stated in the reply to your PB magazine link, it was pretty impressive for the Buell to post the apex speeds that it did. But "carving corners" isn't all about apex speeds in slow 25-30 mph bends, or the ability to do 800 ft stoppies.

So to end this continual McCoy/Hatfield drama, for the record:
The Buell XB12R is a great bike. The Buell XB12R is a great bike. The Buell XB12R is a great bike. The Buell XB12R is a great bike. The Buell XB12R is a great bike. The Buell XB12R is a great bike. The Buell XB12R is a great bike.
And now, back to your regularly scheduled topic...  

Quote:

---

And now, back to your regularly scheduled topic...

---

But this is way more entertaining!!



AT  

Have you ever ridden a Gixxer 1000?  I can pass ANYONE, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME in SIXTH GEAR.

And that includes motorhomes!