|
|
Item Posts
Sort Order
|
|
|
Is more power better?
|
wheelspin
Enthusiast
| Posts: 318
| Joined: 05/05
Posted: 08/30/05
05:18 PM
|
|
Quote:
They will. But let's keep apples with apples.
When you do 0-60 or 1/4 mile times, it has nothing to do with real world riding. On timed acceleration runs, a twin has no chance. The multis are putting out roughly 50-60 more rwhp. But timed accel runs are not real world. Most average riders can't duplicate those times. But most riders can twist the grip of a high torque motor and get that thrust without all the clutch slipping.
Uh..."most average riders can't duplicate those times"? These are top-gear roll-ons, not 0-60 or quarter-mile acceleration runs; I never mentioned those, those results are painfully obvious. All it requires is a rider running up to 60 mph in top gear, then twisting the throttle wide open until the bike reaches 80 mph. I'm pretty sure most beginner riders can acccomplish that feat. Er...don't think it gets more "real world" than that...
Quote:
But if you're both tooling along at city speeds and you both just rollon, he'll leave you fumbling with your gear selector. And looking at the torque curve does tell the story.
Um...yeah, OK.  Maybe if both of you were puttering along at 2500 rpm (don't know about you, but I've never lugged a four-cylinder like that, even on the street). The rpms that were used in the top gear roll-ons would be the same at "city" crusing speeds too. So the results would be basically the same.
What dyno charts don't show you is how quickly the engine revs through its powerband. You can have two engines putting out 100 hp, but one with a 20 lb. crankshaft/flywheel isn't going to rev (and accelerate) as quickly as the engine with a 10 lb. combination.
Quote:
Again, that's my experience from riding the bikes, not reading mags who do time acceleration runs.
Now now, let's not make veiled personal attacks here. I've ridden all the bikes in question too. And "my personal experience" falls completely in line with the test results in the "mags who do time acceleration runs."
Quote:
Facts can be a funny thing sometimes.
I know. Sorry the apples are so sour. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 08/30/05
06:21 PM
|
|
Quote:
Here are some approx numbers ie taken from charts:
Torque
_________________2k 3k 4k 5k 6k 7k 8k 9k 10k
Buell Firebolt___55 66 65 70 74 72
XB12R
Montreal, Canada
http://pages.videotron.com/mcrides
So where exactly is the 85ft/lbs of torque that you are talking about?
And I think it is funny that you say a modern liter bike won't do anything Earth shattering at 5k rpm. My ZX10R picks up the front in 1st at 4k rpm, 7k rpm in 2nd does the same, and 3rd....?? I'll leave that to the imagination.  And roll on power... Wow. No shifting necessary. Anything over 4k rpm, and I have amazing acceleration. Over 8k..., it becomes cliche--arm stretching, eye ball flattening, etc.... Modern liter bikes have unbelieveable thrust. I've demo'd a few Buells. Nice. Fun. Handle well. But no comparison to my bike. It does have torque, but the engine revs so slowly that it just doesn't have that rush of power like an in-line. I think you need to re-ride those liter bikes that you say you've ridden, because what you are saying sounds more like you rode 600s, not 1000s.
And what is with 'all the clutch slipping' talk? The only time I've ever slipped the cluch on any of my bikes is taking off from a stop. 0 to 10 or 15 mph, or more if I am in a hurry.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Trevitt
Enthusiast
| Posts: 250
| Joined: 11/99
Posted: 08/30/05
06:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
glenizzen
New User
| Posts: 4
| Joined: 08/05
Posted: 08/30/05
06:43 PM
|
|
Poor Buell riders, I feel sorry for them. I have an ancient Yamaha FZR 1000, and can still lay waste to them.
|
|
|
|
wheelspin
Enthusiast
| Posts: 318
| Joined: 05/05
Posted: 08/30/05
06:55 PM
|
|
Quote:
Poor Buell riders, I feel sorry for them. I have an ancient Yamaha FZR 1000, and can still lay waste to them.
Hey, it may be "ancient", but it can still run with the best of 'em with the right rider. I had an '87 and an '89 model, and have fond memories of both FZRs. Fantastic motorcycles for their time. The '87 only touched the tires and peg feelers to the ground until I sold it to get the '89.
|
|
|
|
mcrides
New User
| Posts: 8
| Joined: 08/05
Posted: 08/30/05
08:01 PM
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Here are some approx numbers ie taken from charts:
Torque
_________________2k 3k 4k 5k 6k 7k 8k 9k 10k
Buell Firebolt___55 66 65 70 74 72
XB12R
Montreal, Canada
http://pages.videotron.com/mcrides
So where exactly is the 85ft/lbs of torque that you are talking about?
I think that's rear wheel (dyno) vs crank.
Quote:
Anything over 4k rpm, and I have amazing acceleration.
It's not like this is an undiscovered world to me. I've done a bunch of track days on liter bikes (about 40 in the past 3 yrs). From 4.5k rpm to 7.2k rpm in second gear, the Gixxer and ZX 10R pull strongly enough.
But I don't describe it as amazing.
Quote:
Over 8k..., it becomes cliche--arm stretching, eye ball flattening, etc....
I'm with you there.
At 7.5k the Gixxer begins what becomes a furious rush that compresses space and time.
I'm used to feeling that momentary side to side waggle on the bars at 8k as the front wheel lightly skims the road and then, very gracefully, lifts off!!
The Gixxer literally yawns while doing this. Effortless!
Feels as smooth as the nose wheel on a Cessna lifting off during take off roll!
If you accelerate harder, liftoff is quicker!
The ZX 10-R is very much in the same league.
God help the rider who is hanging on with his arms.
Quote:
Modern liter bikes have unbelieveable thrust.
I'm with you there too!
Quote:
I've demo'd a few Buells. Nice. Fun. Handle well. But no comparison to my bike.
Absolutely none. Modern liter bikes are in another universe in terms of performance when compared to the Buell motor. I'm with you there too.
Quote:
And what is with 'all the clutch slipping' talk?
That's how you get those quick launch numbers. Look at how they launch quarter miles. They just don't rollon the throttle when the light goes green.
But this thread was about an R6 de-tuned to FZ6.
I've ridden both. Pretty sure I'm quicker on the FZ6 through the twisties.
That's all I was saying. That I'm not surprised by the FZ6 / R6 results because they match my experience ie not what I've read. And when I mention my experience, it's not a reference to anyone else's experience.
But it seems that those other 20 or so testers felt the same way.
You know, for all their power, many a cutting edge sport bike rider has been dusted in the twisties by a BMW GS.
Also, I'm pretty sure that this bike can also cause even more embarassement. And yet, it only puts out 110hp and 85ft/lbs torque. I'm also pretty sure that it would dust a Firebolt.
I'm talking for average riders, not top aces.
By the way, I don't ride an Buell.
My bike is a CBR929. If you check my website, you'll see that it's done a variety of riding types.
I call that real world.
Cheers!
http://pages.videotron.com/mcrides
|
|
|
|
wheelspin
Enthusiast
| Posts: 318
| Joined: 05/05
Posted: 08/30/05
09:11 PM
|
|
And you were expecting so much, Trevitt...
|
|
|
|
enp83
Enthusiast
| Posts: 361
| Joined: 02/05
Posted: 08/30/05
11:48 PM
|
|
<--- Has never accelerated WOT in top gear to get from 60 to 80mph. Man I hate that meaningless stat. If I'm gonna pass a motorhome I'm not gonna keep it in top gear, whether I'm on a R1, RC51 or GS500.
Keep in mind the Buell also has 5 gears instead of 6, which doesn't help it's acceleration numbers. And like they say, you don't ride a spec sheet. Buells aren't race replicas, and I'd much rather ride one on the street than a GSXR1000/ZX10R/R1/CBR1000RR/etc. One a track is a different story, but I don't live on a track, I don't commute on a track, well over 99% of my miles aren't on a track. Myself buying a race replica designed for the track and then riding it on the street 99% of the time is almost like buying a full size pickup because I move every 3-4 years.
I also think it's interesting to note that both the Buell and the GSXR1000 have exact same top speed on the roads I ride on...about 65-70mph.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 08/31/05
07:23 AM
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Here are some approx numbers ie taken from charts:
Torque
_________________2k 3k 4k 5k 6k 7k 8k 9k 10k
Buell Firebolt___55 66 65 70 74 72
XB12R
Montreal, Canada
http://pages.videotron.com/mcrides
So where exactly is the 85ft/lbs of torque that you are talking about?
And I think it is funny that you say a modern liter bike won't do anything Earth shattering at 5k rpm. My ZX10R picks up the front in 1st at 4k rpm, 7k rpm in 2nd does the same, and 3rd....?? I'll leave that to the imagination. And roll on power... Wow. No shifting necessary. Anything over 4k rpm, and I have amazing acceleration. Over 8k..., it becomes cliche--arm stretching, eye ball flattening, etc.... Modern liter bikes have unbelieveable thrust. I've demo'd a few Buells. Nice. Fun. Handle well. But no comparison to my bike. It does have torque, but the engine revs so slowly that it just doesn't have that rush of power like an in-line. I think you need to re-ride those liter bikes that you say you've ridden, because what you are saying sounds more like you rode 600s, not 1000s.
And what is with 'all the clutch slipping' talk? The only time I've ever slipped the cluch on any of my bikes is taking off from a stop. 0 to 10 or 15 mph, or more if I am in a hurry.
Chris
this is funny. alright now im gonna ask you to do something very hard. i want you to try and think. an engine with a 8-9k rpm doesnt need to rev up quickly. cause if it did if you hit wot youd break the tach needle past the red. the inline 4s rev up to 11-14k rpms. they do have decent power down low but if they werent quick reving theyd be slower. and itd be harder to get into that peak power up top. you dont need a super quick reving motor when your redlines under 10. you can make it quicker but you cant make it rev as quick as a inline 4.
|
|
|
|
wheelspin
Enthusiast
| Posts: 318
| Joined: 05/05
Posted: 08/31/05
07:38 AM
|
|
Quote:
Has never accelerated WOT in top gear to get from 60 to 80mph. Man I hate that meaningless stat. If I'm gonna pass a motorhome I'm not gonna keep it in top gear, whether I'm on a R1, RC51 or GS500.
No, of course not, but the stat is a much better representation of an engine's actual torque, because the bike is left in one gear starting at a specific rpm and speed, with no clutch manipulation or shifting involved while accelerating on "real world" pavement, not a dyno drum. Somewhat more meaningful than a torque chart. Stats are basically what you glean out of them; some can tell quite a bit, others cannot. It's a lot easier for someone to look at a simple line graph and think, "Gee, look, it must accelerate faster because the dyno graph line is higher."
Quote:
Keep in mind the Buell also has 5 gears instead of 6, which doesn't help it's acceleration numbers. And like they say, you don't ride a spec sheet.
You're conveniently ignoring the fact that the roll-on acceleration is done in top gear on all the bikes, and those ratios are usually set to provide a good highway cruising rpm for the engine. If anything, the Buell is going to have shorter gearing because of its intended use (not intended to be ridden at 140mph+ speeds), so it should have an advantage.
Quote:
Buells aren't race replicas, and I'd much rather ride one on the street than a GSXR1000/ZX10R/R1/CBR1000RR/etc. One a track is a different story, but I don't live on a track, I don't commute on a track, well over 99% of my miles aren't on a track. Myself buying a race replica designed for the track and then riding it on the street 99% of the time is almost like buying a full size pickup because I move every 3-4 years.
Everyone is entitled to ride what they want, it's a free country.
Strangely enough, to me, buying a Buell is like purchasing that "full-size pickup". It's got the same raw mechanical styling and sense, and it's fun to ride in for a short period of time. But there's too many compromises when it comes to carving corners.
Quote:
I also think it's interesting to note that both the Buell and the GSXR1000 have exact same top speed on the roads I ride on...about 65-70mph.
Hey, same here, for the most part. It's just anywhere above and below that figure where the aforementioned literbikes are more enjoyable and quicker for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 08/31/05
07:06 PM
|
|
Quote:
this is funny.
Yes it is funny.
Quote:
alright now im gonna ask you to do something very hard. i want you to try and think.
I think things through before I share them with the world. Re-read your post and tell me that you did the same.
Quote:
an engine with a 8-9k rpm doesnt need to rev up quickly.
Why not? We are talking about performance here. Something that revs up quickly will offer more performance than something that revs slowly.
Quote:
cause if it did if you hit wot youd break the tach needle past the red.
Tachs are inaccurate just like speedometers. Just because the needle is past the redline doesn't mean that the engine is going to explode. And unless you down shift at too high a speed, holding the throtle open will run you into the rev limiter before you can do damage. I should mention that reving past the power peak doesn't help performance, it is over-rev to help you from making unnecessary shifts.
Quote:
the inline 4s rev up to 11-14k rpms. they do have decent power down low but if they werent quick reving theyd be slower.
The ZX-6RR revs to 16,500 rpm. But I was comparing my liter bike which has very good bottom end to a Buell which is toruey everywhere, but not really quick. "if they weren't quick reving they'd be slower." Genius. Pure genius. I guess it goes without saying that that applies to ANY engine.
Quote:
and itd be harder to get into that peak power up top.
Obviously. But sport bikes rev quicker and quicker with each generation. And don't forget that the weight of the bike/rider affects how quickly an engine will rev in any gear.
Quote:
you dont need a super quick reving motor when your redlines under 10.
Again, why not? The rate at which an engine revs affects it's ability to do work. In this case accelerate. We are talking about performance here. And there is more to redline that engine configuration--bore/stroke, valve train, piston speed....
Quote:
you can make it quicker but you cant make it rev as quick as a inline 4.
And that is a given. Smaller, lighter internals will spin up quicker than bigger, heavy pieces. They are not like 4s, but ride and SV650, RC51, Ducati 999/749, Aprillia RSV and tell me that a twin can't rev quickly.
If you want to debate 4s vs twins, we should start a new thread. Both have their advantages and drawbacks. My dream bike is a Ducati, but I don't have $18,000 burning a hole in my pocket.
Not to try and get back on topic. Is more power better? Depends. I don't really need or want the 160 or so hp that my 10R has. But I do like having instant acceleration when I twist the throtle. Any gear, any time. The quicker I turn it, the harder it accelerates. Easy to dial in too much.... So I guess I'd say that it is nice to have more power when you twist the throtle than less power. You will want or need the power to be accessable, not just way up in the rpm range. And given the choice, I'd rather have an SV650 than the FZ6. More useable power, and lighter weight. And looking at the dyno chart that Trevett posted, I'd rather have The YZF than the R6 if they weighed the same. The detuned R6 isn't different enough to matter. Change sprokets on the stock R6 and see what the testers say.
Chris
|
|
|
|
xeuse51
User
| Posts: 75
| Joined: 06/05
Posted: 08/31/05
08:41 PM
|
|
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?"
|
|
|
|
wheelspin
Enthusiast
| Posts: 318
| Joined: 05/05
Posted: 09/01/05
08:29 AM
|
|
Welcome to the world of internet forums.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 09/01/05
08:38 AM
|
|
chicken of course. but lets face it buel isnt going after any ama championships or anything. there not making all out performace race bikes. obviously there not gonna perform up to par with a race bike. but dont get me wrong. firebolts are raced in some places. im sure with better internals alone you can get it to rev to like 12k.
|
|
|
|
TEvo
Enthusiast
| Posts: 322
| Joined: 10/02
Posted: 09/01/05
08:48 AM
|
|
Buells are raced with varying degrees of success in various twins classes- pretty much the only place they are competitive, like most twins nowadays.
The XB12R is campaigned in Formula Xtreme with mixed results but it's primarily an also ran in a field of 120+rwhp 600s. 1200cc of air cooled twin against inline fours of half the displacement...
12K on a XB12? Doubtful. The long stroke design of this Sportster derived pushrod engine would make it a fair bit of a technical challenge. The piston speeds would probably be pushing the envelope. Maybe 10K is doable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|