TuneBoy? was Re: Bathurst 1000
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
From: Zebee Johnstone on 23 Oct 2009 16:42 In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:29:22 GMT Lars Chance <lars.chance(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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? > I love V-twins, but the two I own make most of their go high in their rev-range. But then they were made by a company that is making the same bikes they made when they were some of the fastest production bikes available. Not all twin cylinder bikes do the tractor thing and not all people who like them like tractors. Zebee
From: Bill_h on 23 Oct 2009 17:30 On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:29:22 +0000, Lars Chance 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? 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. cheers, Bill
From: Lars Chance on 23 Oct 2009 23:00 Zebee Johnstone wrote: > In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:29:22 GMT > Lars Chance <lars.chance(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> 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? >> > > I love V-twins, but the two I own make most of their go high in their > rev-range. > > But then they were made by a company that is making the same bikes > they made when they were some of the fastest production bikes > available. > > Not all twin cylinder bikes do the tractor thing and not all people > who like them like tractors. > So you keep repeating. Have you got any evidence to back it up though? I can't find a Norge or an 850 but there's a few Guzzi dyno runs here and they all look pretty damn fat torque down low: http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8556 -- Elsie.
From: Zebee Johnstone on 23 Oct 2009 23:56 In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 03:00:24 GMT Lars Chance <lars.chance(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Zebee Johnstone wrote: >> >> I love V-twins, but the two I own make most of their go high in their >> rev-range. >> >> But then they were made by a company that is making the same bikes >> they made when they were some of the fastest production bikes >> available. >> >> Not all twin cylinder bikes do the tractor thing and not all people >> who like them like tractors. >> > > So you keep repeating. Have you got any evidence to back it up though? > I can't find a Norge or an 850 but there's a few Guzzi dyno runs here > and they all look pretty damn fat torque down low: > http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8556 News to me really. As there's absolutely no bloody doubt when you *ride* one that the action is above 5k. Sure, if you get a large enough motor it will pull more than a small one. THe Norge will pootle along happily enough at low revs and will even acellerate from there. But nothing like it pulls from 5k. NOthing at all. The Old Girl and the Hack Guzzi (one an 850 one a 950) are quite simialr although they both have holes at around 4k for some reason so it disturbs the seat of the pants feeling. But still the fun for both is above 5k. Was so on the small blocks I've ridden too. Wheras on the long stroke pommy bikes (singles not twins I've only started a Vincent not ridden one) they didn't have much difference between low and middle. The Devil now it has a decent carb is all midrange.. Zebee
From: Lars Chance on 24 Oct 2009 00:38
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. |