TuneBoy? was Re: Bathurst 1000
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
From: LC on 27 Oct 2009 04:22 On Oct 27, 3:56 pm, JL <jlitt...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Oct 27, 1:07 pm, LC <lars.cha...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 27, 8:04 am, JL <jlitt...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > No. But well done for being predictable. > > > > <speaking very slooooowly for the denser members of the class> The > > > power characteristics you like are unrelated to the number of > > > cylinders and totally related to the engine config. > > > > > ...... and you called ME stupid? > > > > I didn't actually - I provided that as one of the two possible > > > options. However you're starting to convince me that was the correct > > > choice. > > > Is there a reason you keep explaining the *blindingly obvious* like it > > has some sort of relevance to the thread JL? > > Blind Freddie's deaf 4yo knows that long-stroke is a factor in > > torquiness. > > Right so now you finally admit that you were carefully ignoring the > bleeding obvious while trying to prove a untenable position. > > JL > Yes I kept explaining the bleeding obvious ever yet more simply > because you were making it clear you were struggling to get it (or > pretending to)- Hide quoted text - > You're getting silly now JL. I was *ignoring* your obvious because it was irrelevant. No-one had questioned anything about engine design affecting torque and no one has expressed any interest in it at all (except yourself) so it *remains* irrelevant. No one has mentioned fuels yet either; are you going to get all hysterical and dribbling over them next? -- LC.
From: Lars Chance on 27 Oct 2009 09:45 JL wrote: > On Oct 27, 7:09 am, G-S <ge...(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: >> 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. > > Ditto in my opinion, noticeably more than a 2004 Guzzi Le Mans 1200 > twin in my opinion ( I rode them back to back at the time) and I would > think the Guzzi is closer to the torque side of the trade off than the > HP side (although the newer 4V head would def be a move back towards > max HP) > I can't find a LeMans 1200 (do they even exist?) but the 1200 Griso (with the 4V head) http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/PhotoGallerys/xlarge/09_hd_guzzi.jpg leads the 1200 Bandit until about 3700 then falls into a rather large hole just as the Bandit starts coming on strong http://www.factorypro.com/images/dyno_chart_s7410.jpg The BMW R1200R kills the Bandit all the way though http://www.webbikeworld.com/BMW-motorcycles/bmw-r1200r/r1200r-torque-horsepower.jpg (Nm -> foot-pounds is about .74 so 82Nm is 60 and 117Nm is 86) -- Elsie.
From: Lars Chance on 27 Oct 2009 09:45 Bill_h wrote: > > One of the gruntiest bikes (at low revs) I've ridden was the K100RT I had > a while back. Under-square motor (stroke dimension greater than the bore > dimension) and it would pull cleanly from 1500 revs. A four cylinder bike > and grunty right through the rev range. Dunno if there is anything else > on the market currently that is under-square (with the exception of the > likes of Enfield Bullets). > > What I've seen of big sports twins is that they are way over-square, > giving lots of hp and torque, but further up the rev range. > 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 -- Elsie.
From: Lars Chance on 27 Oct 2009 09:46 Sorry for the repost people. -- Elsie.
From: alx on 27 Oct 2009 12:28
On Oct 27, 7:22 pm, LC <lars.cha...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 27, 3:56 pm, JL <jlitt...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 27, 1:07 pm, LC <lars.cha...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 27, 8:04 am, JL <jlitt...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > No. But well done for being predictable. > > > > > <speaking very slooooowly for the denser members of the class> The > > > > power characteristics you like are unrelated to the number of > > > > cylinders and totally related to the engine config. > > > > > > ...... and you called ME stupid? > > > > > I didn't actually - I provided that as one of the two possible > > > > options. However you're starting to convince me that was the correct > > > > choice. > > > > Is there a reason you keep explaining the *blindingly obvious* like it > > > has some sort of relevance to the thread JL? > > > Blind Freddie's deaf 4yo knows that long-stroke is a factor in > > > torquiness. > > > Right so now you finally admit that you were carefully ignoring the > > bleeding obvious while trying to prove a untenable position. > > > JL > > Yes I kept explaining the bleeding obvious ever yet more simply > > because you were making it clear you were struggling to get it (or > > pretending to)- Hide quoted text - > > You're getting silly now JL. I was *ignoring* your obvious because it > was irrelevant. No-one had questioned anything about engine design > affecting torque and no one has expressed any interest in it at all > (except yourself) so it *remains* irrelevant. > No one has mentioned fuels yet either; are you going to get all > hysterical and dribbling over them next? > -- > LC. I'd be willing to just settle for your own confession of being stupid. But did you have to praise JL for supposedly making that claim on your behalf? |