> 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.
> JL wrote: > > On Oct 23, 9:29 pm, Lars Chance <lars.cha...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> JL wrote: > >>> On Oct 23, 7:30 pm, Lars Chance <lars.cha...@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?
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.
> On 26/10/09 10:43 PM, in article > hXfFm.50106$ze1.31...@news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Lars Chance"
> <lars.cha...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > JL wrote: > >> On Oct 23, 9:29 pm, Lars Chance <lars.cha...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> JL wrote: > >>>> On Oct 23, 7:30 pm, Lars Chance <lars.cha...@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.
Yeah undoubtably - you trained him well :-) If he's not you of course
> 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.
Awww, I was gentling tickling for a thread diversion there - both Betty and Toosmoky can usually be incited on that topic :-)
> Hammo > Going for science rather than seat of the pants....though that can depend on > the pants.......
You and I both know that's a diversion, in your best tradition.
I'm pretty sure you KNOW the science: "Low down grunt" aka "high levels of torque at the bottom of the rev range" is a function of engine config - long stroke motors with (comparatively) fewer smaller valves, narrower exhausts and narrower inlet tracts will provide more torque down low in the rev range at the expense of HP at the top end of the range when you compare two engines with the same number of cylinders and same capacity.
The number of cylinders is irrelevant to the engine torque/hp trade off.
For the same capacity and stroke a 4 will have smaller pistons than a twin. That config will leave the 4 with more torque down low than the twin as it will be more under square. There's a physical limitation on max piston speed with current metallurgy so the usual trade off is to make the 4 closer to over square so you can rev it higher - torque goes down and HP goes up with the rev limit (in simple terms - there's more to it than that). The general outcome for non sports bike is a bit more of both than a twin for the equivalent capacity and stroke. For sports bikes a lot more HP and about the same torque.
On Oct 27, 7:09 am, G-S <ge...@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)
>> On 26/10/09 10:43 PM, in article >> hXfFm.50106$ze1.31...@news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Lars Chance" >> <lars.cha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.......
>Hang on; I thought I WAS you? >Bugger. That means I must be Johno then.
> On Oct 26, 10:43 pm, Lars Chance <lars.cha...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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?
> 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. Here; let me help you with some more fascinating revelations: Water is wet. The sky is blue. (1) Fire is hot. Nigerian emails are sometimes dishonest and V-Twin motorcycles almost always have more low-down grunt than equivalent 4cyl motorcycles (despite the seemingly collective aus.motorcycles delusion to the contrary). -- LC.
(1) Scientists can prove that the sky isn't really blue too.
> On Oct 27, 8:04 am, JL <jlitt...@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)
> On Oct 27, 1:07 pm, LC <lars.cha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 27, 8:04 am, JL <jlitt...@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.
> 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.
JL wrote: > On Oct 27, 7:09 am, G-S <ge...@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)
> On Oct 27, 3:56 pm, JL <jlitt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 27, 1:07 pm, LC <lars.cha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 27, 8:04 am, JL <jlitt...@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?
Zebee Johnstone wrote: > In aus.motorcycles on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:11:50 +1100 > G-S <ge...@castbus.com.au> wrote: >> Lars Chance wrote: >>> 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
Lars Chance wrote: > Zebee Johnstone wrote: >> In aus.motorcycles on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:11:50 +1100 >> G-S <ge...@castbus.com.au> wrote: >>> Lars Chance wrote: >>>> 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
>>> Well I currently ride and own a 1200 Moto Guzzi and I've owned 3 >>> separate Suzuki Bandit 1200's (although at the moment I have a Suzuki >>> 1100).
>>> Believe me, the Bandit DOES have more torque down low and will pull >>> away from the guzzi at any speed you care to name.
>>> But the Guzzi FEELS much nicer :)
>> And looks nicer too!
>> I also note that pretty well everyone who rides the new 4V Guzzis >> says they lack down low.
> I don't know anything about them and I've never ridden one so I've only > got opinions and graphs to assess it by. > I'll take graphs thanks Eddie.
Why would you believe graphs over someones tested experience when it's already been explained that graphs from different dyno's can't be directly compared because dynos aren't calibrated?
G-S wrote: > Lars Chance wrote: >> Zebee Johnstone wrote: >>> In aus.motorcycles on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:11:50 +1100 >>> G-S <ge...@castbus.com.au> wrote: >>>> Lars Chance wrote: >>>>> 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
>>>> Well I currently ride and own a 1200 Moto Guzzi and I've owned 3 >>>> separate Suzuki Bandit 1200's (although at the moment I have a >>>> Suzuki 1100).
>>>> Believe me, the Bandit DOES have more torque down low and will pull >>>> away from the guzzi at any speed you care to name.
>>>> But the Guzzi FEELS much nicer :)
>>> And looks nicer too!
>>> I also note that pretty well everyone who rides the new 4V Guzzis >>> says they lack down low.
>> I don't know anything about them and I've never ridden one so I've >> only got opinions and graphs to assess it by. >> I'll take graphs thanks Eddie.
> Why would you believe graphs over someones tested experience when it's > already been explained that graphs from different dyno's can't be > directly compared because dynos aren't calibrated?
probably because nothing is less reliable than the subjective opinion of a person. I offer aus
Nev.. wrote: > G-S wrote: >> Lars Chance wrote: >>> Zebee Johnstone wrote: >>>> In aus.motorcycles on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:11:50 +1100 >>>> G-S <ge...@castbus.com.au> wrote: >>>>> Lars Chance wrote: >>>>>> 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
>>>>> Well I currently ride and own a 1200 Moto Guzzi and I've owned 3 >>>>> separate Suzuki Bandit 1200's (although at the moment I have a >>>>> Suzuki 1100).
>>>>> Believe me, the Bandit DOES have more torque down low and will pull >>>>> away from the guzzi at any speed you care to name.
>>>>> But the Guzzi FEELS much nicer :)
>>>> And looks nicer too!
>>>> I also note that pretty well everyone who rides the new 4V Guzzis >>>> says they lack down low.
>>> I don't know anything about them and I've never ridden one so I've >>> only got opinions and graphs to assess it by. >>> I'll take graphs thanks Eddie.
>> Why would you believe graphs over someones tested experience when it's >> already been explained that graphs from different dyno's can't be >> directly compared because dynos aren't calibrated?
> probably because nothing is less reliable than the subjective opinion of > a person. I offer aus.moto as evidence and wish my computer would stop
> probably because nothing is less reliable than the subjective opinion of > a person. (snip)
Without wishing to offend anyone whose ego might depend on their newsgroup-credibility; opinions are like arseholes. Often there's nothing behind them but shit. Phil Tainton or Jerry Burgess's opinion I might be convinced by; anyone else and I'll do my own research thanks. (As I encourage you to do yours)
Nev.. wrote: > G-S wrote: >> Lars Chance wrote: >>> Zebee Johnstone wrote: >>>> In aus.motorcycles on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:11:50 +1100 >>>> G-S <ge...@castbus.com.au> wrote: >>>>> Lars Chance wrote: >>>>>> 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
>>>>> Well I currently ride and own a 1200 Moto Guzzi and I've owned 3 >>>>> separate Suzuki Bandit 1200's (although at the moment I have a >>>>> Suzuki 1100).
>>>>> Believe me, the Bandit DOES have more torque down low and will pull >>>>> away from the guzzi at any speed you care to name.
>>>>> But the Guzzi FEELS much nicer :)
>>>> And looks nicer too!
>>>> I also note that pretty well everyone who rides the new 4V Guzzis >>>> says they lack down low.
>>> I don't know anything about them and I've never ridden one so I've >>> only got opinions and graphs to assess it by. >>> I'll take graphs thanks Eddie.
>> Why would you believe graphs over someones tested experience when it's >> already been explained that graphs from different dyno's can't be >> directly compared because dynos aren't calibrated?
> probably because nothing is less reliable than the subjective opinion of > a person. I offer aus
Nothing is less reliable than the subjective opinions of certain persons, I'm not one of those persons :)
|
