TuneBoy? was Re: Bathurst 1000
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
From: G-S on 24 Oct 2009 18:57 Lars Chance wrote. > Yep; the K100's certainly torquey all right. > http://www.ibmwr.org/ktech/dyno-update/index.shtml > > Yet the humble, air-cooled, carby R100 develops more torque and from > 1500rpm lower. > http://www.bmwmoa.org/forum/showthread.php?t=34800 > You can't directly compare figures from one dyno to another, whilst they all quote direct torque they use different methods and a bike measured on one type of dyno will get a different result on a different type of dyno. Annoying I know... G-S
From: JL on 26 Oct 2009 06:42 On Oct 23, 9:29 pm, Lars Chance <lars.cha...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > JL wrote: > > On Oct 23, 7:30 pm, Lars Chance <lars.cha...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> JL wrote: > > >>> Ahhh OK, so what you meant is "I like under-square motors" and weren't > >>> experienced enough or smart enough to know how to articulate that. > >> Why? Which bit of "Yeah but who wants torque up the rev-range? > >> Twin-lovers like that lazy, low-down, don't have to go looking-for-it > >> grunt." wasn't clear when I posted it half a week ago? > >> Hardly my fault that you read that as "I ride a twin but would rather a > >> supersports 4 because I like my torque-band at 10,000rpm". > > > And you continue to mistake of thinking the number of cylinders is the > > relevant method of obtaining the rpm config you profess to like. The > > 4cylinder I replaced with my current twin had oodles of "low down > > don't have to go looking for it grunt". My current twin has it's > > torque peak further up the rev range than the 4 did. In fact the 4 had > > probably half as much again grunt anywhere in the rev range as the > > twin does. > > > It's not the cylinder quantity, it's the engine config (mostly the > > bore stroke, but also the number of valves, the placement of valves, > > the diameter and length of the exhaust and the presence or absence of > > cross pipes in the exhaust train). > > > JL > > And for the record the only bike i've ever owned with the torque band > > that high is the two stroke > > > > And which bit of "Yeah but who wants torque up the rev-range? > Twin-lovers like that lazy, low-down, don't have to go looking-for-it > grunt." led you to make such a bizarre conclusion JL? > > Even if it wasn't insanely-hysterical; can you post some evidence to > show that a 4 has 50% more torque everywhere in the rev-range than a > comparable twin has? > > Or is it just silly words and childish name-calling? You must be a Hammo artefact given the continual careful missing the point to still try and "win". I said "The 4cylinder I replaced with my current twin had oodles of "low down don't have to go looking for it grunt". My current twin has it's torque peak further up the rev range than the 4 did. In fact the 4 had probably half as much again grunt anywhere in the rev range as the twin does. " The Bandit 1200 4 cylinder referenced above had oodles more grunt - it's peak torque was pretty flat from down around a thousand rpm right through to a relatively low redline for a 4 (errmm 9-10 grand mebbe ? I forget now). Definitely a lot more across the more - hence the "probably half again more" - that's seat of the pants - but if as I"m sure you will - you dig up the dyno chart I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was more than that. It was a tractor of a motor. Lastly, before you wave it around triumphantly, you'll note the above quote didn't claim to be a comparison of comparable motors - that is in fact exactly the point - the closer to under square you go the lower the HP, the higher the torque (and yes, torque or turning force is "grunt" as felt at the seat of the pants) it's why Hogly only release torque figures (because the engine config means the HP numbers are really sad), and similarly why a number of big (>600cc) singles put out HP numbers less than some (4stroke) 250s. Just because some twins display the characteristics you like doesn't mean it's a function of the number of cylinders any more than the fact that some redheads are scary psychos means that redheadedness causes scary psycho behaviour (correlation not equalling causation and all that). JL
From: Lars Chance on 26 Oct 2009 07:43 JL wrote: > On Oct 23, 9:29 pm, Lars Chance <lars.cha...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> JL wrote: >>> On Oct 23, 7:30 pm, Lars Chance <lars.cha...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> JL wrote: >>>>> Ahhh OK, so what you meant is "I like under-square motors" and weren't >>>>> experienced enough or smart enough to know how to articulate that. >>>> Why? Which bit of "Yeah but who wants torque up the rev-range? >>>> Twin-lovers like that lazy, low-down, don't have to go looking-for-it >>>> grunt." wasn't clear when I posted it half a week ago? >>>> Hardly my fault that you read that as "I ride a twin but would rather a >>>> supersports 4 because I like my torque-band at 10,000rpm". >>> And you continue to mistake of thinking the number of cylinders is the >>> relevant method of obtaining the rpm config you profess to like. The >>> 4cylinder I replaced with my current twin had oodles of "low down >>> don't have to go looking for it grunt". My current twin has it's >>> torque peak further up the rev range than the 4 did. In fact the 4 had >>> probably half as much again grunt anywhere in the rev range as the >>> twin does. >>> It's not the cylinder quantity, it's the engine config (mostly the >>> bore stroke, but also the number of valves, the placement of valves, >>> the diameter and length of the exhaust and the presence or absence of >>> cross pipes in the exhaust train). >>> JL >>> And for the record the only bike i've ever owned with the torque band >>> that high is the two stroke >> > >> And which bit of "Yeah but who wants torque up the rev-range? >> Twin-lovers like that lazy, low-down, don't have to go looking-for-it >> grunt." led you to make such a bizarre conclusion JL? >> >> Even if it wasn't insanely-hysterical; can you post some evidence to >> show that a 4 has 50% more torque everywhere in the rev-range than a >> comparable twin has? >> >> Or is it just silly words and childish name-calling? > > You must be a Hammo artefact given the continual careful missing the > point to still try and "win". > > I said > "The > 4cylinder I replaced with my current twin had oodles of "low down > don't have to go looking for it grunt". My current twin has it's > torque peak further up the rev range than the 4 did. In fact the 4 had > probably half as much again grunt anywhere in the rev range as the > twin does. " > > The Bandit 1200 4 cylinder referenced above had oodles more grunt - > it's peak torque was pretty flat from down around a thousand rpm right > through to a relatively low redline for a 4 (errmm 9-10 grand mebbe ? > I forget now). Definitely a lot more across the more - hence the > "probably half again more" - that's seat of the pants - but if as I"m > sure you will - you dig up the dyno chart I wouldn't be at all > surprised if it was more than that. It was a tractor of a motor. > > Lastly, before you wave it around triumphantly, you'll note the above > quote didn't claim to be a comparison of comparable motors - that is > in fact exactly the point - the closer to under square you go the > lower the HP, the higher the torque (and yes, torque or turning force > is "grunt" as felt at the seat of the pants) it's why Hogly only > release torque figures (because the engine config means the HP numbers > are really sad), and similarly why a number of big (>600cc) singles > put out HP numbers less than some (4stroke) 250s. > > Just because some twins display the characteristics you like doesn't > mean it's a function of the number of cylinders any more than the fact > that some redheads are scary psychos means that redheadedness causes > scary psycho behaviour (correlation not equalling causation and all > that). > So what you're basically saying is that you were comparing an apple with an orange and the whole post had nothing to do with the discussion to which you replied? ....... and you called ME stupid? -- Elsie.
From: Hammo on 26 Oct 2009 07:53 On 26/10/09 10:43 PM, in article hXfFm.50106$ze1.31033(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Lars Chance" <lars.chance(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > JL wrote: >> On Oct 23, 9:29 pm, Lars Chance <lars.cha...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> JL wrote: >>>> On Oct 23, 7:30 pm, Lars Chance <lars.cha...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> JL wrote: >>>>>> Ahhh OK, so what you meant is "I like under-square motors" and weren't >>>>>> experienced enough or smart enough to know how to articulate that. >>>>> Why? Which bit of "Yeah but who wants torque up the rev-range? >>>>> Twin-lovers like that lazy, low-down, don't have to go looking-for-it >>>>> grunt." wasn't clear when I posted it half a week ago? >>>>> Hardly my fault that you read that as "I ride a twin but would rather a >>>>> supersports 4 because I like my torque-band at 10,000rpm". >>>> And you continue to mistake of thinking the number of cylinders is the >>>> relevant method of obtaining the rpm config you profess to like. The >>>> 4cylinder I replaced with my current twin had oodles of "low down >>>> don't have to go looking for it grunt". My current twin has it's >>>> torque peak further up the rev range than the 4 did. In fact the 4 had >>>> probably half as much again grunt anywhere in the rev range as the >>>> twin does. >>>> It's not the cylinder quantity, it's the engine config (mostly the >>>> bore stroke, but also the number of valves, the placement of valves, >>>> the diameter and length of the exhaust and the presence or absence of >>>> cross pipes in the exhaust train). >>>> JL >>>> And for the record the only bike i've ever owned with the torque band >>>> that high is the two stroke >>>> >>> And which bit of "Yeah but who wants torque up the rev-range? >>> Twin-lovers like that lazy, low-down, don't have to go looking-for-it >>> grunt." led you to make such a bizarre conclusion JL? >>> >>> Even if it wasn't insanely-hysterical; can you post some evidence to >>> show that a 4 has 50% more torque everywhere in the rev-range than a >>> comparable twin has? >>> >>> Or is it just silly words and childish name-calling? >> >> You must be a Hammo artefact given the continual careful missing the >> point to still try and "win". >> >> I said >> "The >> 4cylinder I replaced with my current twin had oodles of "low down >> don't have to go looking for it grunt". My current twin has it's >> torque peak further up the rev range than the 4 did. In fact the 4 had >> probably half as much again grunt anywhere in the rev range as the >> twin does. " >> >> The Bandit 1200 4 cylinder referenced above had oodles more grunt - >> it's peak torque was pretty flat from down around a thousand rpm right >> through to a relatively low redline for a 4 (errmm 9-10 grand mebbe ? >> I forget now). Definitely a lot more across the more - hence the >> "probably half again more" - that's seat of the pants - but if as I"m >> sure you will - you dig up the dyno chart I wouldn't be at all >> surprised if it was more than that. It was a tractor of a motor. >> >> Lastly, before you wave it around triumphantly, you'll note the above >> quote didn't claim to be a comparison of comparable motors - that is >> in fact exactly the point - the closer to under square you go the >> lower the HP, the higher the torque (and yes, torque or turning force >> is "grunt" as felt at the seat of the pants) it's why Hogly only >> release torque figures (because the engine config means the HP numbers >> are really sad), and similarly why a number of big (>600cc) singles >> put out HP numbers less than some (4stroke) 250s. >> >> Just because some twins display the characteristics you like doesn't >> mean it's a function of the number of cylinders any more than the fact >> that some redheads are scary psychos means that redheadedness causes >> scary psycho behaviour (correlation not equalling causation and all >> that). >> > > So what you're basically saying is that you were comparing an apple with > an orange and the whole post had nothing to do with the discussion to > which you replied? > ...... and you called ME stupid? > Yeah, low blow, JL. I'm with Elsie. Post some dyno graphs or something...... Oh, all elephants are grey, but not all grey things are elephants would have been better than the redhead example. Hammo Going for science rather than seat of the pants....though that can depend on the pants.......
From: G-S on 26 Oct 2009 16:09
JL wrote: > > The Bandit 1200 4 cylinder referenced above had oodles more grunt - > it's peak torque was pretty flat from down around a thousand rpm right > through to a relatively low redline for a 4 (errmm 9-10 grand mebbe ? > I forget now). 9500 I think, I forget too. A Bandit 1200 has more low down torque than any twin I've owned or ridden with the exception of an M109. G-S |