100 bhp is all I need debate - again

[cheshirecat]

Visordown (http://www.visordown.com/road-tests-first-rides/ive-ridden-the-future-and-its-100bhp/20440.html)

Well its all I need but then I don't do track and then there's that V4 torque curve i wouldn't do without.
Be interested in what track folk think.

[Mental Trousers]

Racers never have enough horsepower :facepalm:

Even the Superbike boys want more and then they try and figure out how to ride the thing.

[bogan]

Guess if you are fond of pies you might need all 100, I'm happy with 55ish, and can't see me ever using more than 80.

[DEATH_INC.]

I've said it many times myself, I've had more fun on the little bikes than a lot of the time on big 'uns. 100hp is more than enough on the road, shit, all the old 1100's from the early 80's were hardly that much, they got along just fine...

[kiwifruit]

Some of the best fun i've had has been on bikes with less than 10 (ten) hp

[gatch]

Mine has 50. Maybe.. And I love caning it.

Though I would also love to be able to cane a 200hp bike. That weights 140kg.. NCR M16..

[slofox]

600cc + 105ish hp +163kg dry = a good time.

[Ender EnZed]

After riding the ~40hp DR650 then my ~100hp VFR feels pretty quick. It could still do with an extra 50 or so though.

[nathan.read]

Today I moved from a 40ish hp bike to 100hp Hornet, loving the power

[Asher]

I dont see the point of it, if they were serious they would make a power to weight restrictions.
Although my next bike will have around 100hp

[mossy1200]

My future engine rebuild could make 100hp. just need to get 6 numbers correct on a Saturday night.

[Nzpure]

well i recently went from 25hp ish haveing spent a little time on a 70ish hp bike and jumped to 175hp and its farkin rediculus going to take me a long time to get ""comfortable"" wiht the bike

[LBD]

100 bhp is all I need debate - again...

No, I don't "Need" more than 100 hp...however I do want and enjoy more than 100hp....this is a civil liberty/freedom of choice question/quality of life to pursue individual life style choices issue, so much more than a legislative means to protect us from our selves.

And limiting bike power will only be the tip of the iceberg, next will be power to weight limitations, maximum speed limitations....and then when the fun police have finished with bikes and if the Govt play fair..(which I do not expect) then next on the agenda will be cars...I can see it now, the family Falcon with a Corolla sized motor...

[raziel1983]

well i recently went from 25hp ish haveing spent a little time on a 70ish hp bike and jumped to 175hp and its farkin rediculus going to take me a long time to get ""comfortable"" wiht the bike

Its only 175hp if you ride around at 9800rpm though :Police:

[GrayWolf]

100bhp?
nope about 88-90bhp... but never enough torque... got 145bhp on the other bike, but only at 'go directly to jail' speeds

[Ender EnZed]

Its only 175hp if you ride around at 9800rpm though :Police:

That's a good point actually. It'd be interesting to see some data for power-being-used in real world riding of big bikes.

[tigertim20]

Visordown (http://www.visordown.com/road-tests-first-rides/ive-ridden-the-future-and-its-100bhp/20440.html)

Well its all I need but then I don't do track and then there's that V4 torque curve i wouldn't do without.
Be interested in what track folk think.
the 100 bhp debate annoys me.
for one, who's to say what I Need?

secondly, what does 'need' have to do with it?
by the time you account for late model cars and their excellent economy, the higher rate of rego, the generally higher cost of tyres and servicing on bikes, you could argue that nobody needs abike, period. plus a car would be more practical.

You dont need to fuck your missus every night either - once or twice a month at the right part of the cycle should be sufficient for getting her pregnant.
say goodbye to blowjobs too if 'need' is the only factor, and you can forget about banging her up the arse.

Need is irrelevant. you want what you want - everyone is different, these poeple should fuck off and ride instead of pissing on about what they think everyone else needs

as for racing, well there are parity based classes out there where you have to go as fast as you can within a very restrictive set of rules, but i dont see a 100hp bike ever being competitive with a moto gp bike at phillip island . ..

[Nzpure]

the 100 bhp debate annoys me.
for one, who's to say what I Need?

secondly, what does 'need' have to do with it?
by the time you account for late model cars and their excellent economy, the higher rate of rego, the generally higher cost of tyres and servicing on bikes, you could argue that nobody needs abike, period. plus a car would be more practical.

You dont need to fuck your missus every night either - once or twice a month at the right part of the cycle should be sufficient for getting her pregnant.
say goodbye to blowjobs too if 'need' is the only factor, and you can forget about banging her up the arse.

Need is irrelevant. you want what you want - everyone is different, these poeple should fuck off and ride instead of pissing on about what they think everyone else needs

as for racing, well there are parity based classes out there where you have to go as fast as you can within a very restrictive set of rules, but i dont see a 100hp bike ever being competitive with a moto gp bike at phillip island . ..
What if said bike weighed around 50kgs then 100bhp would be crazy! 2hp per kilo now thats a power to weight ratio...dreams are free eh!

[FJRider]

I have lived in countries that have a "registration" (called road tax) scheme ... that is based on engine capacity. The larger the engine ... the more you pay. Peoples attitude on what they need changes rapidly.

[blackdog]

What if said bike weighed around 50kgs then 100bhp would be crazy! 2hp per kilo now thats a power to weight ratio...dreams are free eh!

Your ratio is wrong. It will weigh circa 150kg with a body on it.

As for restricting what I ride, fucking try and stop me.

[Asher]

If governments let us use only what we needed and not what we wanted we would have very boring lives and our economy would sure suffer for it.


What you ride has very little to do with your survival, its all about how you ride it.

[CHOPPA]

The more HP you have the more fun, you dont have to go fast to feel the power :woohoo:

[Ender EnZed]

you dont have to go fast to feel the power :woohoo:

You kind of do when the best of it is at 150km/h in first.

[mossy1200]

The more curry you have the more fun, you dont have to eat fast to feel the power :woohoo:

Fixed that for you.

[GrayWolf]

That's a good point actually. It'd be interesting to see some data for power-being-used in real world riding of big bikes.

most sport tourers like the FJ, Concours, Bandit, or the naked's like FJX1300, GSX1400 etc are all high torque 'lower top end HP' bikes
My ZZR is substantially faster then the FJ or the MT... however in 'real world' performance? 80-130k roll on in top gear? the FJ pulls stronger than the Zed, the bandit has bloody good torque. The MT at real world riding speeds, (not thrashing it for fun speeds) is as quick/quicker up the wainui hill than the other 2... The zed doesnt produce 'real power' till 6k rpm the FJ begins at about 3.5k rpm (torque) and the MT at 2.25, full torque at 3.75k rpm
HP gives you top end speed, torque gives you acceleration (tractive power against weight)

[Nzpure]

Your ratio is wrong. It will weigh circa 150kg with a body on it.

As for restricting what I ride, fucking try and stop me.

what if a really light midget was riding it?

[Nzpure]

most sport tourers like the FJ, Concours, Bandit, or the naked's like FJX1300, GSX1400 etc are all high torque 'lower top end HP' bikes
My ZZR is substantially faster then the FJ or the MT... however in 'real world' performance? 80-130k roll on in top gear? the FJ pulls stronger than the Zed, the bandit has bloody good torque. The MT at real world riding speeds, (not thrashing it for fun speeds) is as quick/quicker up the wainui hill than the other 2... The zed doesnt produce 'real power' till 6k rpm the FJ begins at about 3.5k rpm (torque) and the MT at 2.25, full torque at 3.75k rpm
HP gives you top end speed, torque gives you acceleration (tractive power against weight)

I'm willing to bet the busa pulls harder at all revs then those bikes :shifty:
My harley had good torque the busa has ZOMG my arms are being pulled from their sockets power and im only talking about 0-100

[Nzpure]

I'm willing to bet the busa pulls harder at all revs then those bikes :shifty:
My harley had good torque the busa has ZOMG my arms are being pulled from their sockets power and im only talking about 0-100

actually under 4k rpm its really tame ignore that.

[ducatilover]

I suppose my slightly over 100hp bike is okay. Wouldn't mind another 300hp though.

If we are having that retarded argument, my GN250 is all I "need" :facepalm:

[GrayWolf]

I'm willing to bet the busa pulls harder at all revs then those bikes :shifty:
My harley had good torque the busa has ZOMG my arms are being pulled from their sockets power and im only talking about 0-100


actually under 4k rpm its really tame ignore that.

ZRX1400... same torque as the MT-01..... 110ft lbs
FJR1300... 100ft lbs of torque not bad for a decade old bike.... Hayabusa..94ft lbs of torque <<<<---------- but shitloads more HP
V max 123ft lbs...... B king 108ft lbs

[ducatilover]

ZRX1400... same torque as the MT-01..... 110ft lbs
FJR1300... 100ft lbs of torque not bad for a decade old bike.... Hayabusa..94ft lbs of torque <<<<---------- but shitloads more HP
V max 123ft lbs...... B king 108ft lbs

Would be interesting to compare roll on acceleration between 'em.
It's not just the torque, but weight and gearing make a mega difference. :Punk:

I lack torque, 66nm on one bike and 22ish on the other...

[short-circuit]

As for restricting what I ride, fucking try and stop me.

Been affected by rego hikes?

[BigAl]

Like money you can't have too much.

[The Pastor]

Would it be a bad thing if showrooms were full of engines that produce eye-watering amounts of torque not horsepower? I'd be up for it.

WTF HE ON ABOUT F00L. HE WANTS LOW HP AND HIGH TORQUE, SO LOW REVS...... HELLO HARLEY

[GrayWolf]

Quote Originally Posted by GrayWolf View Post
ZRX1400... same torque as the MT-01..... 110ft lbs
FJR1300... 100ft lbs of torque not bad for a decade old bike.... Hayabusa..94ft lbs of torque <<<<---------- but shitloads more HP
V max 123ft lbs...... B king 108ft lbs



Would be interesting to compare roll on acceleration between 'em.
It's not just the torque, but weight and gearing make a mega difference. :Punk:

I lack torque, 66nm on one bike and 22ish on the other...


As I said before the FJ out grunts the ZZR on roll on top 2 gears (5 vs 6 speed) untill the Zed hits it's 'stride' then it's warp factor 9 Scottie. However you are in 'lose licence' speeds by then. I have posted in the FJ group and did post an excerpt again in another discussion.. An English bike mag did a comparison between the GSX1100, ZX10, FZR1000, V max and FJ1200... i think it was 80 - 130kph (50-80mph) roll on's in top 3 gears.. Basically 'real world' overtaking behavior in traffic. The Max and FJ buried the sprot bikes, and the FJ was within cooee of the Max, then of course the Max hit V boost... warp 11, Scottie!!

As an aside my ZZR and FJ are within spitting of eachother for revs at 100kph with both bikes in top gear, so roll on in top is fairly accurate for power delivery.

[JATZ]

FWIW... I have more fun riding the little DR350 over Takaka hill than I ever did on the 100hp+ Triumph. The trumpy was pretty quick :innocent: but it's more fun backing the wee bike into corners and riding the bike within an inch of it's life :blink:

But I think that's a different question :facepalm: ... Do you have more fun with 100bhp ?

[DEATH_INC.]

ZRX1400... same torque as the MT-01..... 110ft lbs
FJR1300... 100ft lbs of torque not bad for a decade old bike.... Hayabusa..94ft lbs of torque <<<<---------- but shitloads more HP
V max 123ft lbs...... B king 108ft lbs
My mates old '81 GPZ1100 with a 1270 (I think) kit and some port work made enough grunt to spin the little 120 rear tyre just about from idle in first and second. Having power over the WHOLE rpm range is bloody awesome.
It's exactly the thing that all these clowns use to justify riding a thou sprotbike on the road, yet it is the 1 thing they don't do :no:

[GrayWolf]

My mates old '81 GPZ1100 with a 1270 (I think) kit and some port work made enough grunt to spin the little 120 rear tyre just about from idle in first and second. Having power over the WHOLE rpm range is bloody awesome.
It's exactly the thing that all these clowns use to justify riding a thou sprotbike on the road, yet it is the 1 thing they don't do :no:

yeh those 'big bore' kits from the 70/80's were a lot of fun..... something 'missing' from modern bikes.. the ability to swap barrels 250 to 350/400cc :innocent: buy an off the peg big bore from Wiseco etc.....

[Blackflagged]

100 bhp RS125 would keep you amused for a while! Road track anywere.

[DEATH_INC.]

RG500, 95hp@ 9500 rpm. Yet to hear anyone who's actually ridden one call it boring....same goes with RZ500 too.
There's heaps of sub 100hp bikes out there that are a blast to ride.

[Nzpure]

ZRX1400... same torque as the MT-01..... 110ft lbs
FJR1300... 100ft lbs of torque not bad for a decade old bike.... Hayabusa..94ft lbs of torque <<<<---------- but shitloads more HP
V max 123ft lbs...... B king 108ft lbs

Was born in teh 80s fella give me some kWs and some nMs man! :p

[Nzpure]

Was born in teh 80s fella give me some kWs and some nMs man! :p

Well some nMs anways i can relate with HP.

[Ender EnZed]

FWIW... I have more fun riding the little DR350 over Takaka hill than I ever did on the 100hp+ Triumph. The trumpy was pretty quick :innocent: but it's more fun backing the wee bike into corners and riding the bike within an inch of it's life :blink:

That might be as much a question of riding position as power. How do you find the 350 compared to your DR650 over the hill?

When I first got my DR I was amazed just how much fun it was on twisty sealed roads, even on adventure tyres. Relatively light weight and wide bars make flicking the bike around absolutely effortless compared to a big road bike. Motards must be fucking hilarious.

[DEATH_INC.]

Was born in teh 80s fella give me some kWs and some nMs man! :p
And you young'uns think of yourselves as the computer generation, google man, google it!

[GrayWolf]

Was born in teh 80s fella give me some kWs and some nMs man! :p

well maybe you'll see what we mean from this clip.... in top 2500rpm gives 110kph..... you can have some serious fun on sub 100bhp bikes.... oh 110ft lbs is about 150nm


www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_QbYOcoALM

[The Singing Chef]

well maybe you'll see what we mean from this clip.... in top 2500rpm gives 110kph..... you can have some serious fun on sub 100bhp bikes.... oh 110ft lbs is about 150nm


www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_QbYOcoALM

Sounds like a friggen aeroplane! That would make them cagers move!

[Nzpure]

ZRX1400... same torque as the MT-01..... 110ft lbs
FJR1300... 100ft lbs of torque not bad for a decade old bike.... Hayabusa..94ft lbs of torque <<<<---------- but shitloads more HP
V max 123ft lbs...... B king 108ft lbs

Also busa stats are
Max Power
175 hp 127.6 kW @ 9800 rpm
Max Torque
103ft lb/140 Nm @ 7000 rpm
A silly good mixture or torque and hp

[Nzpure]

well maybe you'll see what we mean from this clip.... in top 2500rpm gives 110kph..... you can have some serious fun on sub 100bhp bikes.... oh 110ft lbs is about 150nm


www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_QbYOcoALM

I must say i have only recent become aware of the MT-01 and it certainly looks and sounds like a cool bike to own.
So does the Vmax god i would love to own one of them.

[EJK]

What's so magical about the limitation number of 100?

100hp
100kph

[ducatilover]

What's so magical about the limitation number of 100?

100hp
100kph

Because racecar.

[Nzpure]

Because racecar.

I second that motion.

[pritch]

Honda, and a lot of other people, consider it likely that the price of gas is about to go through the roof.
So the latest offerings from Honda, the NC700 series, make plus or minus fifty horses depending on the variant, but they do about 90mpg. (Children can do their own conversions, but that's about double the mileage of most current bikes.)

BMW is another maker that has been focused on reduced consumption in more recent models.

Reducing from my current 130HP odd to fifty seems a big drop, and is. Then again 50HP was good enough for a Manx Norton way-back-when so maybe...

[GrayWolf]

Also busa stats are
Max Power
175 hp 127.6 kW @ 9800 rpm
Max Torque
103ft lb/140 Nm @ 7000 rpm
A silly good mixture or torque and hp

Yes apologies the original busa was 94ft lbs,,,, the new version does indeed have more torque

still less than an MT-01 though :nya: :innocent:

[GrayWolf]

Sounds like a friggen aeroplane! That would make them cagers move!


I must say i have only recent become aware of the MT-01 and it certainly looks and sounds like a cool bike to own.
So does the Vmax god i would love to own one of them.

This is what a standard one's like from the rider perspective,,,,, at one point you can see how 'quickly' it climbs to 3k revs/130kph :gob:


www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT9mlgRf7vc

[EJK]

Because racecar.

Could the government limit the petrol price to 100 cents per litre?

[Nzpure]

Yes apologies the original busa was 94ft lbs,,,, the new version does indeed have more torque

still less than an MT-01 though :nya: :innocent:

busa would still :spanking: the MT-01 :yes:
But the MT-01 is certainly a very cool bike i loved the torque from 100 revs on the harley.

[Nzpure]

Yes apologies the original busa was 94ft lbs,,,, the new version does indeed have more torque

still less than an MT-01 though :nya: :innocent:

Is it true they get like 19.5km/L / 45mpg?

[ducatilover]

Remember, the FJ and ZZR are very old bikes these days, the partial throttle power on the modern fullas is biblical compared to the older beasts, I would put my $$ on a 'Busa spanking an MT-01 in roll on tests.
I'd rather ride an MT though, it's disturbingly cool!

[GrayWolf]

Is it true they get like 19.5km/L / 45mpg?

as it happens I filled up on the way home this evening... 11 ltrs for 203 kms

[GrayWolf]

Remember, the FJ and ZZR are very old bikes these days, the partial throttle power on the modern fullas is biblical compared to the older beasts, I would put my $$ on a 'Busa spanking an MT-01 in roll on tests.
I'd rather ride an MT though, it's disturbingly cool!

of course the busa would.. never tried to say otherwise lol....


the partial power of the current bikes IS good, you have variable valves, ignition mapping, injection etc...
the FJ and ZZR are 'old' however we have their moderm counterparts... FJR/Concours/ZX1400/Busa. the busa isnt a sprot bike in the same sense the ZZR or Blackbird were sprot bikes....... compare the Busa, ZX14 to modern sprot bikes....
theres your modern version of the shoot out that I posted an excerpt from.

[Nzpure]

as it happens I filled up on the way home this evening... 11 ltrs for 203 kms

That bloody brilliant gets better mpg then the busa lol.

[tigertim20]

Remember, the FJ and ZZR are very old bikes these days, the partial throttle power on the modern fullas is biblical compared to the older beasts, I would put my $$ on a 'Busa spanking an MT-01 in roll on tests.
I'd rather ride an MT though, it's disturbingly cool!

have you ridden one though? they are fucking boring. I looked forward to riding it for weeks, and I was massively dissapointed. boring, no character at all.

[ducatilover]

have you ridden one though? they are fucking boring. I looked forward to riding it for weeks, and I was massively dissapointed. boring, no character at all.

Nope, have ridden all the others though.
You just burst the fuck out of my bubble bro

[tigertim20]

Nope, have ridden all the others though.
You just burst the fuck out of my bubble bro

better than letting the anticipation build.
theyve worked soo hard at making it smooth, that its lost the riding character youd expect from a twin. its TOO smooth to the point of being a bore too ride. It was nice to thump away up a hill at 100km/hr doing 2200 rpm or so, and it pulled smoothly when you rolled on the gas, but it was boring in the same way i found the bmw s1000rr boring - its been refined too much. I like a few rough edges to add character.
Id buy a 1700cc V twin because I want it to be lumpy, and deliver forward momentum with a kick in the chest and a roar in the ears. It just didnt do it for me.

it would be a great commuter especially if you did highway riding to get to work and back, or would be a good mid to long range bike - effortless touring, but little fun factor

[GrayWolf]

Nope, have ridden all the others though.
You just burst the fuck out of my bubble bro

if you liked the HD rev's/power.. you will like the MT... it is a cruiser motor that has basically been tweaked, put into a reasonable frame and suspension package. The performance is about the same as an XR1200, may be a little faster on acceleration. Compared to my ZZR? yes it is 'slow'.. about 1.25 seconds slower over a standing 1/4.. and at least 70kph less top speed. But the MT is as quick overall up the taka's etc. if not a bit quicker in some places. I have no doubt some will find them 'boring'.... just like I find sprot bikes boring to ride. My reason for finding them boring is the exact reason others love them, ridiculous power delivery, unforgiving suspension and bloody uncomfortable.
They indeed can be described as 'wheezy'? up top.. they are not 'up top' machines; the power is produced in the usable speed range.... not at 150kh plus in top gear like the big bore power bikes.

[mossy1200]

Nope, have ridden all the others though.
You just burst the fuck out of my bubble bro

Mines not boring.
I have had rsvmille,zxr12r,blackbird,sp1.
What I like about the MT is the fun is at speeds that dont endanger the licence.
Rimutaka in 3rd and 4th gear is a blast on a MT.They just need be riden between 3 and 4 tho revs like a large old enduro bike.

[BMWST?]

the MT 01s are 1800cc right?

[scracha]

I love the 75-80 ponies my tedium makes......but that doesn't mean I want to stop or sneer at anyone who enjoys a bike with 18 or 180 ponies.

Trackbike/racebike .... i like about the same but that's only because I don't get free tyres and brake pads.

And having lived in France for a bit...if you believe bikers there put up with the 100bhp limit then you're clearly deluded.

[mossy1200]

the MT 01s are 1800cc right?

1670 :eek:

[BMWST?]

100 hp in a lightish tourquey package with good ground clearance,good brakes,good size( i am 190cm),and nice neutral handling and good fuel economy(or range) would do me just fine

someone make me a list!

[DEATH_INC.]

I rode a V-Rod Muscle the other week (it was a customers) that had the baffles pulled etc, and they only rate it @86 ft/lb @ a measly 6500 rpm stock, but I'd put money on it to 100mph over a sprotbike. It may not win every time, but it was ludicrously grunty off the line, and so damn easy to launch, and it even got to 125mph :whistle: pretty readily. It was actually a bloody hoot to ride. :yes:

[ducatilover]

if you liked the HD rev's/power.. you will like the MT... it is a cruiser motor that has basically been tweaked, put into a reasonable frame and suspension package. The performance is about the same as an XR1200, may be a little faster on acceleration. Compared to my ZZR? yes it is 'slow'.. about 1.25 seconds slower over a standing 1/4.. and at least 70kph less top speed. But the MT is as quick overall up the taka's etc. if not a bit quicker in some places. I have no doubt some will find them 'boring'.... just like I find sprot bikes boring to ride. My reason for finding them boring is the exact reason others love them, ridiculous power delivery, unforgiving suspension and bloody uncomfortable.
They indeed can be described as 'wheezy'? up top.. they are not 'up top' machines; the power is produced in the usable speed range.... not at 150kh plus in top gear like the big bore power bikes.
Not a fan of much related to H-D, the only thing I think I dislike so far about the MT-01 is the noise, I despise 45 degree twin noise with a passion.

Wouldn't it be nice to have that kind of torque and then some real top end power? No reason why Yamaha couldn't do it.
The XR1200 is the only HD I'd own currently, I'd just park it up and gawk at it.


better than letting the anticipation build.
theyve worked soo hard at making it smooth, that its lost the riding character youd expect from a twin. its TOO smooth to the point of being a bore too ride. It was nice to thump away up a hill at 100km/hr doing 2200 rpm or so, and it pulled smoothly when you rolled on the gas, but it was boring in the same way i found the bmw s1000rr boring - its been refined too much. I like a few rough edges to add character.
Id buy a 1700cc V twin because I want it to be lumpy, and deliver forward momentum with a kick in the chest and a roar in the ears. It just didnt do it for me.

it would be a great commuter especially if you did highway riding to get to work and back, or would be a good mid to long range bike - effortless touring, but little fun factor
Makes sense to me. My vibrating homo single cylinder GN is actually full of LOL when you get over the fact it's amazingly slow. I fuckin' love the thing, so wobbly and hilarious.

Mines not boring.
I have had rsvmille,zxr12r,blackbird,sp1.
What I like about the MT is the fun is at speeds that dont endanger the licence.
Rimutaka in 3rd and 4th gear is a blast on a MT.They just need be riden between 3 and 4 tho revs like a large old enduro bike.
I'll have to try one out


I rode a V-Rod Muscle the other week (it was a customers) that had the baffles pulled etc, and they only rate it @86 ft/lb @ a measly 6500 rpm stock, but I'd put money on it to 100mph over a sprotbike. It may not win every time, but it was ludicrously grunty off the line, and so damn easy to launch, and it even got to 125mph :whistle: pretty readily. It was actually a bloody hoot to ride. :yes:

You'd fuckin' hope so after allt he hype that was made over a bike that isn't as good as a VMAX :innocent:

[GrayWolf]

[QUOTE=mossy1200;1130307600
What I like about the MT is the fun is at speeds that dont endanger the licence.

Rimutaka in 3rd and 4th gear is a blast on a MT.They just need be riden between 3 and 4 tho revs like a large old enduro bike.[/QUOTE]

Those two statements are 'IT' in a nutshell..
.if you want top end power in a twin, go buy a Duck... Guzzi do not really chase top end power either. its about fun and enjoying the ride, not being at the edge of ability at high speeds. I have done and there are those on KB who have been riding at speed at times with me. I am capable of 'fast riding' maybe not as fast as others. You don't actually get time to enjoy the actual 'ride'.. you are concentrating so intently on the 'art' itself of rapid progression.

I will repeat Mossy's 1st point again.. I have as much fun at 90-130kph on the MT as I ever did/do on the ZZR at 200kph.

[ducatilover]

I will repeat Mossy's 1st point again.. I have as much fun at 90-130kph on the MT as I ever did/do on the ZZR at 200kph.

I like the sound of that.
I'm pretty sure I can have fun on anything, as I said before I have fun on my GN...and that won't even do 130k! :yes:
Mind you, I'm not a balls to the wall rider, I go at my own pace.

[Fast Eddie]

.. but it was boring in the same way i found the bmw s1000rr boring

lol woah!

someone who finds an s1000rr boring should obviously be racing a sidecar.

what a lunatic

[scumdog]

Guess if you are fond of pies you might need all 100, I'm happy with 55ish, and can't see me ever using more than 80.

65 raw grunty horsepower at the rear wheel of my raunchy 1450cc H-D.

'Adequate' is the word I would use...


100hp would be wasted on me

(But then again, my 650cc 'zuki has 85hp...)

[ducatilover]

65 raw grunty horsepower at the rear wheel of my raunchy 1450cc H-D.

'Adequate' is the word I would use...


100hp would be wasted on me

(But then again, my 650cc 'zuki has 85hp...)

I haven't come across a situation where I've "had" to use the 100hp or so my little thing makes...but, I like having it there.

[Big Dave]

Any more and his tassels would blow off.

[scumdog]

Any more and his tassels would blow off.

And unlike me the tassles don't smell when they blow off...:killingme

[tigertim20]

lol woah!

someone who finds an s1000rr boring should obviously be racing a sidecar.

what a lunatic

lol I didnt say it wasnt fast as fuck - it was, and light, and flickable, and small, but it still managed to be boring.
fucking germans!

[Fast Eddie]

lol I didnt say it wasnt fast as fuck - it was, and light, and flickable, and small, but it still managed to be boring.
fucking germans!

I'm told you turn traction control and wheelie control off and use a twist of the right wrist haha

[tigertim20]

I'm told you turn traction control and wheelie control off and use a twist of the right wrist haha

it was off.
had a wee moment with me, a quiet street, and a paddy wagon.
turns out rick did the exact same thing earlier that morning

[BMWST?]

it was off.
had a wee moment with me, a quiet street, and a paddy wagon.
turns out rick did the exact same thing earlier that morning

slightly ot,but what are you comaring the rr to when you say too refined??

[FJRider]

All the information I have found on my FJ1200 ... tells me I will have about 125 HP at 9500 rpm (I assume at the crank) ... and as 100 km/hr it's at 4000 rpm, I still have a bit to play with. The torque on tap even at those revs ... is still good. The actual HP being devoped at speed limit revs ... in top gear ... may not be seen as very impressive to some though. But I ride like a nana anyway.

[mossy1200]

Mt 88hp wasnt quite enough to pass a Ducati on the rimutakas today.

[James Deuce]

Mt 88hp wasnt quite enough to pass a Ducati on the rimutakas today.

It's not the horsepower that's the issue.

[tigertim20]

slightly ot,but what are you comaring the rr to when you say too refined??

dunno if refined is the right word. basically it just wasnt as fun as the brand new crossplane I rode back to back. crossplane just seemed more fun.
If I was looking for a track bike, id go the beemer, it would be easier to go faster
for the road Id get the yamaha, Id have more fun, more of the time. it just felt like it had more character. it was bigger, heavier, felt heavier in the corners, and required more rider input to do the same thing, to me it felt more like I had achieved the result when riding the yam, in the beemer though, I felt more like a passenger, the bike just made it a bit too easy.

just my opinion, and I have no doubt there are plenty out there that disagree with me.

[mossy1200]

It's not the horsepower that's the issue.

Im not biting today sorry.

[ducatilover]

All the information I have found on my FJ1200 ... tells me I will have about 125 HP at 9500 rpm (I assume at the crank) ... and as 100 km/hr it's at 4000 rpm, I still have a bit to play with. The torque on tap even at those revs ... is still good. The actual HP being devoped at speed limit revs ... in top gear ... may not be seen as very impressive to some though. But I ride like a nana anyway.

My dad had an FJ12 with a 4-1 etc and that pulled well. Wasn't brain bending, but a bloody torque loaded lump nonetheless.

[James Deuce]

I've watched a husband and wife team make Ducati riders cry on the Rimutakas on their ex-Army KLX250s. Supposed to be 20-something-hp, but after decades of being tortured, more like 12hp. With shocks installed upside down.

I think you guys are a bunch of spoiled cry-babies. It's not about the hp, all you need is a bike.

[ducatilover]

I've watched a husband and wife team make Ducati riders cry on the Rimutakas on their ex-Army KLX250s. Supposed to be 20-something-hp, but after decades of being tortured, more like 12hp. With shocks installed upside down.

I think you guys are a bunch of spoiled cry-babies. It's not about the hp, all you need is a bike.

I reckon I could take a CT90 on with my GN.

[mossy1200]

I reckon I could take a CT90 on with my GN.

Or a MT01 also

[ducatilover]

Or a MT01 also

I have a bike, so I'll win.

Wait, whut?

[Big Dave]

I reckon I could take a CT90 with my GN.

In the cornhole as it ran over you.

[ducatilover]

In the cornhole as it ran over you.

:lol::lol::lol:

[GrayWolf]

dunno if refined is the right word. basically it just wasnt as fun as the brand new crossplane I rode back to back. crossplane just seemed more fun.
If I was looking for a track bike, id go the beemer, it would be easier to go faster
for the road Id get the yamaha, Id have more fun, more of the time. it just felt like it had more character. it was bigger, heavier, felt heavier in the corners, and required more rider input to do the same thing, to me it felt more like I had achieved the result when riding the yam, in the beemer though, I felt more like a passenger, the bike just made it a bit too easy.

just my opinion, and I have no doubt there are plenty out there that disagree with me.

Now this I find confusing... you liked the cross plane as it felt heavier, felt heavier in corners and required more rider input..... yet the MT is boring,,, but at 260+kg fully wet,, it is a heavy bike that still requires 'rider input'.... so following that logic,, an R1 which is light, flickable, easy to throw round in bends and is highly suited to the race track??? yet you own one!!!!

Also i do get your point of wanting vibes etc... but try owning a bike that vibrates full time.. Like a couple of old bonnevilles, after a few hundred K's a few times trust me that vibration is nothing other than a pain in the ass..... bits fall off, hands tingle, feet tingle, mirrors (if they stay attached) are useless. This also brings up another point? IF HP is so critical, why is it that low HP cruisers, Triumphs, HD's and Guzzi 750's etc are selling in large numbers? nothing there tops 100bhp. OH and as an historical point the MT has as much HP as the original 4cyl King, the Z1 900. The worlds fasted production bike for over 30 years was also under 100bhp... The mighty Vincent!

[98tls]

Also i do get your point of wanting vibes etc... but try owning a bike that vibrates full time.. Like a couple of old bonnevilles, after a few hundred K's a few times trust me that vibration is nothing other than a pain in the ass..... bits fall off, hands tingle, feet tingle, mirrors (if they stay attached) are useless. This also brings up another point? IF HP is so critical, why is it that low HP cruisers, Triumphs, HD's and Guzzi 750's etc are selling in large numbers? nothing there tops 100bhp.!

Possibly because the average age of motorcyclists is rising mate and with age comes blah blah....Internet forums and HP threads always prove worthy of a few laughs really,theres a thread on here re the SV1000 which provided a few for me anyway ie the suspensions crap etc etc the bottom line is anybody with real ability on 2 wheels will go point to point on the roads that matter onboard an SV or even older than the average bloke onboard anything he cares to wobble out the new bike showroom on period,few will care to admit that though sitting in front of a computer screen.

[tigertim20]

Now this I find confusing... you liked the cross plane as it felt heavier, felt heavier in corners and required more rider input..... yet the MT is boring,,, but at 260+kg fully wet,, it is a heavy bike that still requires 'rider input'.... so following that logic,, an R1 which is light, flickable, easy to throw round in bends and is highly suited to the race track??? yet you own one!!!!

Also i do get your point of wanting vibes etc... but try owning a bike that vibrates full time.. Like a couple of old bonnevilles, after a few hundred K's a few times trust me that vibration is nothing other than a pain in the ass..... bits fall off, hands tingle, feet tingle, mirrors (if they stay attached) are useless. This also brings up another point? IF HP is so critical, why is it that low HP cruisers, Triumphs, HD's and Guzzi 750's etc are selling in large numbers? nothing there tops 100bhp. OH and as an historical point the MT has as much HP as the original 4cyl King, the Z1 900. The worlds fasted production bike for over 30 years was also under 100bhp... The mighty Vincent!

My liking for the crossplane wasnt necessarily because it felt heavier, it was just one aspect of the overall experience of riding the bike
the mt I didnt like because it lacked soul, and frankly, the MT did not feel anywhere near as heavy as it really is, its incredibly flickable.
beemer = light, fast as hell, but no soul
MT = toyota corolla on 2 wheels, does everything just fine, but boring
the crossplane had a uniqueness to the sounds, vibration, delivery, everything.

If you look back youll see that Ive not said at any point that HP is critical - of the 3 bikes, the beemer has the most HP by quite a way, and I didnt like it.
What I have said, is that its not about whether or not you NEED it. you dont NEED a car over 1.5 litres either, you dont NEED a bike at all, in fact you could probably get by on public transport.
horses for courses, I seldon use all the power of my bike, but I LIKE having it.

I think the argument of 'do you need xxx HP' is redundant - who am I to tell you how much power you need? or you me?
we ride what we want to ride because we have our own tastes.

as for the MT matching the power of the Z1 900, well Ill take your word on the numbers, but if you took ten different bikes that all had the same HP rating, youd find they all had different quarter mile times, different top speeds, different braking distances, different 80-130 times etc etc - there is so much more to the equation than HP - I cannot understand the intense focus on HP all the time. what about power to weight, what about centre of gravity, what about torque? these things affect your ride and your experience much much more than a max hp number on any bike.

[James Deuce]

Throttle connection to right hand is everything. There is nothing worse than that modern abomination of the closed throttle to open throttle "flat-spot". It isn't a flat spot, it's nothing straight to 5%. It doesn't matter how much hp or how many torques a bike has, if you can't smoothly transition from a closed throttle to a linear application of power, it needs to be set on fire, shot, crushed, and then blown up. Then posted back to the manufacturer with a demand for a refund.

[BMWST?]

Throttle connection to right hand is everything. There is nothing worse than that modern abomination of the closed throttle to open throttle "flat-spot". It isn't a flat spot, it's nothing straight to 5%. It doesn't matter how much hp or how many torques a bike has, if you can't smoothly transition from a closed throttle to a linear application of power, it needs to be set on fire, shot, crushed, and then blown up. Then posted back to the manufacturer with a demand for a refund.

thats why a test ride is mandatory when buying a bike

[porky]

Throttle connection to right hand is everything. There is nothing worse than that modern abomination of the closed throttle to open throttle "flat-spot". It isn't a flat spot, it's nothing straight to 5%. It doesn't matter how much hp or how many torques a bike has, if you can't smoothly transition from a closed throttle to a linear application of power, it needs to be set on fire, shot, crushed, and then blown up. Then posted back to the manufacturer with a demand for a refund.

I think you will find the hp follows the talk....torque......and the flat spot preceeds the talk...torque...........otherwise refered to as the...........


MT = corrolla on two wheels.....yeah right and the Gn = a shelby cobra?????

[mossy1200]

I think you will find the hp follows the talk....torque......and the flat spot preceeds the talk...torque...........otherwise refered to as the...........


MT = corrolla on two wheels.....yeah right and the Gn = a shelby cobra?????

I agree. My MT is more like a diesel turbo Ford Courier Ute.

[James Deuce]

That's not the issue at all. Some modern FI systems simply turn the fuel off when you close the throttle. Manufacturers are getting better at ameliorating this as it is simply an emissions lark, but some companies still do this with their cheaper FI systems. Keep fuel going to one cylinder and the problem is fixed. I really hate that elastic feeling ride-by-wire throttle controllers have too.

By contrast, what I ask the RVF for, I get. Now. 4 carbs you see, and yet they're supposed to be a horrible compromise. Not for "feel" they're not.

HP is a function of torque.


HP = rpm x T(torque)
5252(constant)

[Big Dave]

T I really hate that elastic feeling ride-by-wire throttle controllers have too.


http://www.bswett.com/bhs/Grandpa.gif

[Andy67]

beemer = light, fast as hell, but no soul.

I think the Soul ugrade is included as part of the the sports package and not factory standard in the base model.

[rossirep]

No 100 is not enough..!!!

200 would be awesome fun to blast around on ...

[GrayWolf]

as for the MT matching the power of the Z1 900, well Ill take your word on the numbers, but if you took ten different bikes that all had the same HP rating, youd find they all had different quarter mile times, different top speeds, different braking distances, different 80-130 times etc etc - there is so much more to the equation than HP - I cannot understand the intense focus on HP all the time. what about power to weight, what about centre of gravity, what about torque? these things affect your ride and your experience much much more than a max hp number on any bike.

Jeeze Mate its the TORQUE Myself and Mossy have been going on about overall, lower HP but massive torque in the usable speed/rev ranges. Anyway.. as you can see from the figures below, if you took an MT back to 1973: you truly would scare the fuck out of ANY Z1 rider, and to quote reviewers of the time? Overkill power (Z1). The MT just 'feels slow'; its a long stroke, slow revving motor, that simply powers (torque) its way along.

Z1 900... 82bhp, 54ft lbs of torque, standing 1/4 ---- 12.3 seconds, top speed 130mph (209kph)
MT-01.....84bhp, 110ft lbs of torque, standing 1/4 -- 12.45 seconds, top speed 127mph (205kph)
http://kz900.com/z1_specs_73-75.html
http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/kawasaki/kawasaki_z1%2072.htm

QUOTE.... PERFORMANCE BIKE MAGAZINE
MT-01
1670 cc
84 bhp @ 4,500 rpm << most tests rate at 88bhp
146 Nm @ 3,750 rpm
Wheelbase 1525 mm
Dry weight 240 kg
Quarter mile 12.45 @ 108.33 mph
Top speed 133 mph (212kph) << disagree 205 is more realistic
0-60mph 3.75

Actually I have frequently said it feels like a 'real bike' from those days... that compo' really lets me understand why I love the thing.. it IS a 'throwback' bike.... :first::niceone:

[scumdog]

Jeeze Mate its the TORQUE Myself and Mossy have been going on about overall, lower HP but massive torque in the usable speed/rev ranges. Anyway.. as you can see from the figures below, if you took an MT back to 1973: you truly would scare the fuck out of ANY Z1 rider, and to quote reviewers of the time? Overkill power (Z1). The MT just 'feels slow'; its a long stroke, slow revving motor, that simply powers (torque) its way along.

Z1 900... 82bhp, 54ft lbs of torque, standing 1/4 ---- 12.3 seconds, top speed 130mph (209kph)
MT-01.....84bhp, 110ft lbs of torque, standing 1/4 -- 12.45 seconds, top speed 127mph (205kph)
http://kz900.com/z1_specs_73-75.html
http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/kawasaki/kawasaki_z1%2072.htm

:

My XN85 has allegedly 85hp, does the 1/4 in just over the 12 second mark (faster if you ask the right people!) and about 125+mph top speed.
No real torque at low revs though.

[ducatilover]

My little toy will have everything for brekky, then make omelets out of anything left over.

[BMWST?]

Jeeze Mate its the TORQUE Myself and Mossy have been going on about overall, lower HP but massive torque in the usable speed/rev ranges. Anyway.. as you can see from the figures below, if you took an MT back to 1973: you truly would scare the fuck out of ANY Z1 rider, and to quote reviewers of the time? Overkill power (Z1). The MT just 'feels slow'; its a long stroke, slow revving motor, that simply powers (torque) its way along.

Z1 900... 82bhp, 54ft lbs of torque, standing 1/4 ---- 12.3 seconds, top speed 130mph (209kph)
MT-01.....84bhp, 110ft lbs of torque, standing 1/4 -- 12.45 seconds, top speed 127mph (205kph)
http://kz900.com/z1_specs_73-75.html
http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/kawasaki/kawasaki_z1 72.htm

QUOTE.... PERFORMANCE BIKE MAGAZINE
MT-01
1670 cc
84 bhp @ 4,500 rpm << most tests rate at 88bhp
146 Nm @ 3,750 rpm
Wheelbase 1525 mm
Dry weight 240 kg
Quarter mile 12.45 @ 108.33 mph
Top speed 133 mph (212kph) << disagree 205 is more realistic
0-60mph 3.75

Actually I have frequently said it feels like a 'real bike' from those days... that compo' really lets me understand why I love the thing.. it IS a 'throwback' bike.... :first::niceone:

no it isnt,its too far the other way..its got no top end what so ever has it...what we need is a modern interpretation of those 80s superbikes...gs 100 cb 900 gsx 1100 etc,they were about 100 hp,and had good power band too.you could ride the things around in top...overtake in top ...

[GrayWolf]

My little toy will have everything for brekky,

then make omelets out of anything left over. <<<<<<<< Only after My little toy has shaken everything left over up, ready to make omeletes...... :bleh:

[ducatilover]

<<<<<<<< Only after My little toy has shaken everything left over up, ready to make omeletes...... :bleh:

Whilst my other one watches and cries like the bitch bike it is!:killingme

[GrayWolf]

Quote Graywulf:
Z1 900... 82bhp, 54ft lbs of torque, standing 1/4 ---- 12.3 seconds, top speed 130mph (209kph)
MT-01.....84bhp, 110ft lbs of torque, standing 1/4 -- 12.45 seconds, top speed 127mph (205kph)

Actually I have frequently said it feels like a 'real bike' from those days... that compo' really lets me understand why I love the thing.. it IS a 'throwback' bike....



no it isnt,its too far the other way..its got no top end what so ever has it...what we need is a modern interpretation of those 80s superbikes...gs 100 cb 900 gsx 1100 etc,they were about 100 hp,and had good power band too.you could ride the things around in top...overtake in top ...

HUH? its within 3mph top end of a Z1, so by your reckoning the Z1 has no 'top end' either.
By the 1980's the big bikes, XS1100 etc were all knocking on the door of 100bhp, so even the venerable Z1 was outclassed by 10-15mph top speed. As for overtaking in top, with a 'good power band'? Mate you only 'need' 2 gears 90% of the time while riding the MT,,, most of that reason is because of the long stroke it will 'lug' below 2000rpm in certain circumstances. It has a 'good power band' with a redline of 5.5k the power spread is from 2750 to 4500, very comparable to any other bike if you double the figures, at 11k redline a 4.5k power band very comparable to most bikes. As for no top end? the reason modern bikes are so fast is the power IS far more up the top end compared to the old bikes, hence why my old FJ outpulls my ZZR in real world use. The current crop of new bikes have all the wizardry of variable cam, timing, injection mapping.... so yes they really have every advantage in that respect.

[BMWST?]

Quote Graywulf:
Z1 900... 82bhp, 54ft lbs of torque, standing 1/4 ---- 12.3 seconds, top speed 130mph (209kph)
MT-01.....84bhp, 110ft lbs of torque, standing 1/4 -- 12.45 seconds, top speed 127mph (205kph)

Actually I have frequently said it feels like a 'real bike' from those days... that compo' really lets me understand why I love the thing.. it IS a 'throwback' bike....




HUH? its within 3mph top end of a Z1, so by your reckoning the Z1 has no 'top end' either.
By the 1980's the big bikes, XS1100 etc were all knocking on the door of 100bhp, so even the venerable Z1 was outclassed by 10-15mph top speed. As for overtaking in top, with a 'good power band'? Mate you only 'need' 2 gears 90% of the time while riding the MT,,, most of that reason is because of the long stroke it will 'lug' below 2000rpm in certain circumstances. It has a 'good power band' with a redline of 5.5k the power spread is from 2750 to 4500, very comparable to any other bike if you double the figures, at 11k redline a 4.5k power band very comparable to most bikes. As for no top end? the reason modern bikes are so fast is the power IS far more up the top end compared to the old bikes, hence why my old FJ outpulls my ZZR in real world use. The current crop of new bikes have all the wizardry of variable cam, timing, injection mapping.... so yes they really have every advantage in that respect.

i understand every thing you say...but with all that capacity and torque its only the same as a z1....there must be a more efficient way of acheiving what i want

[mossy1200]

i understand every thing you say...but with all that capacity and torque its only the same as a z1....there must be a more efficient way of acheiving what i want


Two up plus gear and trailer getting 220km from 13 litres between filling. Efficient enough for me.

Its like trying to compare a diesel turbo ute with a sports car. Sports car will get you there fast but you will need do a few more trips if your moving house.

[ducatilover]

i understand every thing you say...but with all that capacity and torque its only the same as a z1....there must be a more efficient way of acheiving what i want

There is, it's called a VMAX, or any modern IL4.

[BMWST?]

Two up plus gear and trailer getting 220km from 13 litres between filling. Efficient enough for me.

Its like trying to compare a diesel turbo ute with a sports car. Sports car will get you there fast but you will need do a few more trips if your moving house.

that is quite good,but i just cant get my head around a 1700 cc bike.

[mossy1200]

that is quite good,but i just cant get my head around a 1700 cc bike.

If we all had the same taste every bike would be the same and everyone would own the same car and all live in identical houses.
MT is kind of like a big block muscle car on mild tune. Isnt that fast compaired to a high reving sports car but it still has appeal.

[GrayWolf]

that is quite good,but i just cant get my head around a 1700 cc bike.

I understand what you say, but the fact you 'dont get it'.. you dont need to run down the MT...it's design purpose is for Torque, not HP, none of your modern sprot bikes or the 1980's super bikes have a higher torque peak then their HP peak.. thats the MT's forte.
Even the spectacular power bike V max cannot do that; 200hp, 123ft lbs torque (BTW I owned a 1991 R100GS when I came to NZ, fantastic bike btw. It's one of those bike you look back on ownership with a smile).
I dont care how many bikes can get up a hill, or 'destroy' a straight faster than me.. I am loping along at 2-3k rpm on a bike that is just plain enjoyable to ride.... Mossy calls the MT a turbocharged diesel ute...

I'd compare it as... if a sprot bike is a cheetah. Fast, agile and highly tuned (fragile)
The MT is a charging rhino.. solid, powerful and once on the move nigh on bloody impossible to stop.

[ducatilover]

I understand what you say, but the fact you 'dont get it'.. you dont need to run down the MT...it's design purpose is for Torque, not HP, none of your modern sprot bikes or the 1980's super bikes have a higher torque peak then their HP peak.. thats the MT's forte.
Even your BMW cannot do that.. (and I owned a 1991 R100GS when I came to NZ, fantastic bike btw. It's one of those bike you look back on ownership with a smile).
I dont care how many bikes can get up a hill, or 'destroy' a straight faster than me.. I am loping along at 2-3k rpm on a bike that is just plain enjoyable to ride.... Mossy calls the MT a turbocharged diesel ute...

I'd compare it as... if a sprot bike is a cheetah. Fast, agile and highly tuned (fragile)
The MT is a charging rhino.. solid, powerful and once on the move nigh on bloody impossible to stop.

But, the sportier bikes are made for more HP and your HP number will always be higher than the torque number, usually if the NM rating on your engine is greater than 10% of the CC rating, you have a brilliant motor.
No denying that the MT makes a ridiculous amount of torque for a vehicle that's ~260kg wet.

[GrayWolf]

usually if the NM rating on your engine is greater than 10% of the CC rating, you have a brilliant motor.
No denying that the MT makes a ridiculous amount of torque for a vehicle that's ~260kg wet.


And that's what we are trying to tell everyone..... the MT is all about Torque not BHP.

[ducatilover]

And that's what we are trying to tell everyone..... the MT is all about Torque not BHP.

Agreed, even thought the specific torque/L output on the MT isn't very impressive, it doesn't really matter, because it's still 1670 odd cc and as you keep saying, makes all it's power before 4500rpm.
Much better donk than the American equivalents:niceone: I need to ride one, I think the power delivery would be nice. My 600 only turns on at 7, gets silly at 9 but doesn't taper off until you get the limiter @~15k. Too many revs!

[James Deuce]

Definitely worth a look. (http://www.bobpickett.co.uk/bkit/2006mt-01.htm)

[Kickaha]

After riding bikes for 30 odd years I've yet to own a bike that has 100hp (or more) my current bike has about 80-85hp and is that is more than adequate for my usage

I find I can still ride like a wanker regardless of how many HP I have

[Fast Eddie]

After riding bikes for 30 odd years I've yet to own a bike that has 100hp (or more) my current bike has about 80-85hp and is that is more than adequate for my usage

I find I'm can still ride like a wanker regardless of how many HP I have

haha god someone take this strike thing away from me..

[GrayWolf]

haha god someone take this soft floppy thing away from me..

there fixed! :niceone:

[Voltaire]

In my 30 years of riding I only had one bike that claimed to have 100 HP and it was 3 year old 1981 Z1000..... these days I get by with 50HP on the Commando ,R90 track bike or less if I'm on the skootah.:niceone:

[CHOPPA]

You kind of do when the best of it is at 150km/h in first.

Not when you drop 2 teeth on the front and add 1 to the back. Big bikes are overgeared to the moon. Nice when you are touring but it makes 200hp feel flat

[BMWST?]

If we all had the same taste every bike would be the same and everyone would own the same car and all live in identical houses.
MT is kind of like a big block muscle car on mild tune. Isnt that fast compaired to a high reving sports car but it still has appeal.

undoubtedley!