Honda Love

[AllanB]

Have you thanked Honda lately?

If you ride anything remotely modern you should have.

Without them you may still be tolerating crap engineering and electrics and piss poor reliability. Ok chances are another Japanese maker would have introduced something equally impressive as 1969's CB750 (pretty sure Kawasaki were working one a inline 4) but the push button, run forever engines we take for advantage now over all brands (Hobag excluded of course) are a direct response to Hondas brilliance.

Oh sure BMW had a good rep for reliability but in reality is was relative to the rattly, leaky American, European and British bikes around during the 60's.

So take a quiet moment next time you push your electric starter and you bike fires up to thank Honda.

Now Honda just need to bring out a similar cutting edge, huge leap forward machine in their current range ........................

On that note the CB750/4 of 69 was what we now call a naked bike (just a motorcycle back then!) we tend to think the next leap forward will be a sport bike, I'd love to see it somewhere else. Actually the more I type this wine inspired post the more I think the next big leap in motorcycling will be a world beating electric motorcyle sometime in the next decade.

[The Lone Rider]

Interesting post.

Didn't pay a penny for your thoughts, but I don't regret the time taken to read it.

[pete376403]

Kawasaki had their inline 4 very close to release when Honda dropped the CB750 bombshell. They (KHI) went back to the drawiing board and reworked the bike into the Z1. Honda have been trying to catch up ever since.

That the Kawasaki design was superior is shown by the way Suzuki copied the KHI design, rather than Hondas, for the GS series.

(stands back and waits...):devil2:

[dangerous]

Have you thanked Honda lately?
Without them you may still be tolerating crap engineering and electrics and piss poor reliability. UMMMmmmmmmm... I ride a Guzzi :headbang:

[YellowDog]

Have you thanked Honda lately?


So take a quiet moment next time you push your electric starter and you bike fires up to thank Honda.



I certainly do agree with this post. Honda dragged the industry up kicking and screaming into competing with their own technological advancements.

Good though they may be, I'm not sure that their venture into Cruisers was a great way forward :no:

[nudemetalz]

Have you thanked Honda lately?

************
Now Honda just need to bring out a similar cutting edge, huge leap forward machine in their current range ........................



You mean like the Hydrogen powered ES-21 concept they brought out in '93.
This is super cool looking, even by today's standards..
Honda can do it....


And yup, like Dangerous I ride '60s engineered Guzzi ...

[Road kill]

Honda's CB750 came out in 68 not 69,also Kawasaki was taking a break from building ships an had their Z900 on the drawing board already.
Japan was simply following a trend that would of happened anyway and in fact has always been happening,,,and they were taught that by the yanks.
So you should really be thanking the Americans because with out their helping to rebuild japan after having bombed them into the real world,,they would still be living in the 16th century and attacking the Chinese,which is what got them in the shit and in turn dragged them out of the dark ages in the first place.
Frankly,I thank the Japanese for nothing because building a better version of some other persons idea counts for nothing,it's still a copy no matter how you twist it.
Even brother brain damage bleats on about the japs sharing things and returning to alternative closer to nature life styles like it's something new and actually "their" idea,,,,well the hippys beat them to that by 40 years .
All they do or ever have done it to copy or slightly improve on things that others have already done.
Plus if you ride Brittish like you should,,,they become pretty much a non event anyway.:bleh:

[gammaguy]

I took my Big Bang rotary disc Valve four cylinder twin crank two stroke Suzuki for a ride today.

That was 6 hours ago,and I am still grinning.

Tell me what part of that I should thank Honda for.

[merv]

I took my Big Bang rotary disc Valve four cylinder twin crank two stroke Suzuki for a ride today.

That was 6 hours ago,and I am still grinning.

Tell me what part of that I should thank Honda for.

For retiring from GP racing after 1967 season and not building its own two strokes for about 15 years to let Suzuki have a chance to win some championships before the NS and NSR Hondas kicked arse.

[FJRider]

The Russians were first in space ... but who on the International Space station thanks them for being able to be there .. (apart from when the Russian supply ship arrives)

Kawasaki always seem to wait and see how the "others" do it ... and improve on it.

[Edbear]

Soichiro Honda was a brilliant engineer and industrialist who deserves all the accolades he gets. While some Jap manufacturers did copy and improve on British and American designs, the fact that they did improve them out of sight, says a lot for their ability. Witness the W1 for example.

The Japs are also innovators and very careful with design. They are not unique in that either, as there are very clever people all around the world in all nations. I think we should give credit where credit is due regardless who they are or where they come from.

[ducatilover]

I do like my Hondas, they're always trying to move things on and innovate. They've built many ridiculously nice bikes and the majority are super solid bits of kit. I prefer them to the other Jap bikes (in general).
So who is going to let me have a go on an RC45?

[nudemetalz]

For retiring from GP racing after 1967 season and not building its own two strokes for about 15 years to let Suzuki have a chance to win some championships before the NS and NSR Hondas kicked arse.
Had they not retired in after ’67, word is they had a 125-6 cylinder and 250 V8 for 1968,….<O:p</O:p
That I would have loved to see !!<O:p</O:p

[gammaguy]

For retiring from GP racing after 1967 season and not building its own two strokes for about 15 years to let Suzuki have a chance to win some championships before the NS and NSR Hondas kicked arse.

are you sure you dont mean....

"trying for years to build a four stroke race bike and finally realising that they were wasting their time and money and building a two stroke like the rest had been doing,then signing the best riders of the time to finally win the premier class"?

innovation?I think not

Following the others?I think so

Soichiro Honda hated two strokes,and it is indeed a testament to their engineers that they made some really good ones,he must have turned in his grave.

As far as my RG is concerned,I have nothing to thank Honda for,it is more german in design that Japanese.The best 2T engineers were from Germany in the early days,they defected and went to Japan to work for Suzuki and Yamaha after the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Degner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Kaaden

[yod]

All they do or ever have done it to copy or slightly improve on things that others have already done.


:rofl::killingme

:corn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_inventions

[Edbear]

http://world.honda.com/history/limitlessdreams/joyofmanufacturing/text/01.html

[willytheekid]

...So who is going to let me have a go on an RC45?

:drool: I wish I could help you there mate(sadly Im just not rich enough)
....My RC36II is as close as I can offer you sir (Just don't flip it!:lol:)

[Bassmatt]

All they do or ever have done it to copy or slightly improve on things that others have already done.


Yep its the Japanese way.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Two words for you Kim:

RC30

[ducatilover]

:drool: I wish I could help you there mate(sadly Im just not rich enough)
....My RC36II is as close as I can offer you sir (Just don't flip it!:lol:)

That works for me :D I promise not to flip it ;)

[Flip]

Who is going to Flip what?

Thanks Honda for what? Destroying almost every other motorcycle maker in the world?

[Paulo]

UMMMmmmmmmm... I ride a Guzzi :headbang:


I thanked My honda today, since the Guzzi shat it's clutch and gearbox at least the little GB gets me to work whilst Luigi finds some parts. :)

(i don't need to tell you what I prefer to ride though)

[dangerous]

I thanked My honda today, since the Guzzi shat it's clutch and gearbox at least the little GB gets me to work whilst Luigi finds some parts. :)

(i don't need to tell you what I prefer to ride though)

orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr some you poor farker ;)

[AllanB]

Who is going to Flip what?

Thanks Honda for what? Destroying almost every other motorcycle maker in the world?


Many were producing crap .............

Triumph was indeed killed - some blame the Japanese but really it was the inability of the company to drag their arses into the modern world. I'm pretty sure they were still using coal fired machinery ......... I'll back that up by introducing any of the current lineup of most excellent Triumphs. Indeed the current (carbed) Bonnie has very little in the engineering department that Triumph could not have made in the 70's.

It is indeed a shame that Laverda is not producing kick arse big bore triples any more.

Harley Davidson - I note you ride one and fine machines the new Hogs - yet another maker who almost died in the AMF era and righly so with the crap they were churning out. The very best of your HD can be linked back to the Japanese, not to mention the dozens of Japanses parts on it. I'd not hesitate to own a new HD.

Ducatis current realibility is a result of public demand, a public who have been reared on push button run without problems bikes from Japan.

Interesting comments and good posts by all.

I may have to start a post on cruisers and Japans inability to break out of the HD immitations. I have a vision of a serious IL4 or triple cruiser as I fail to see why they have to be V twins. Shit Japan had great success with some (suspectly styled..) 80's 'cruisers'.

[caseye]

That works for me :D I promise not to flip it ;)

Willy! Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
Wife owns a nonda, NV400Custom, starts easy runs well, cant fault it.
Thanks Mr Honda.

[Laava]

Honda's CB750 came out in 68 not 69,also Kawasaki was taking a break from building ships an had their Z900 on the drawing board already.
Japan was simply following a trend that would of happened anyway and in fact has always been happening,,,and they were taught that by the yanks.
So you should really be thanking the Americans because with out their helping to rebuild japan after having bombed them into the real world,,they would still be living in the 16th century and attacking the Chinese,which is what got them in the shit and in turn dragged them out of the dark ages in the first place.
Frankly,I thank the Japanese for nothing because building a better version of some other persons idea counts for nothing,it's still a copy no matter how you twist it.
Even brother brain damage bleats on about the japs sharing things and returning to alternative closer to nature life styles like it's something new and actually "their" idea,,,,well the hippys beat them to that by 40 years .
All they do or ever have done it to copy or slightly improve on things that others have already done.
Plus if you ride Brittish like you should,,,they become pretty much a non event anyway.:bleh:Geez, I hope you took a breath in the midst of all that!

I had a 1972 Laverda 750 that the eyeties unashamedly copied directly off a Honda CB72. So, yeah, thanks Soichiro!
Also, looking like my next project will be based around a 1972 SL125. That's a Honda BTW

[spanner spinner]

Honda didn't kill off the british bikes they did it to them self. The managment of triumph stopped a over head cam four from being developed, a prototype was made but no more delelopment was done as new tooling would have to be bought. The poor engineers where told to go back and try again but to design some thing that could be made with the exsisting machine tools, so we got the orginal trident. A Bonneville with a extra cylinder in the middle, all the Bonneville problems with a extra cylinder worth thrown in for good measure. And the machine tools where on there last legs due to years of underinvestment. If you make a shit product and some one comes along and makes a good product the public soon decides what it want's to buy.
Norton did the same with there rortary, it was running in prototype form in the late 60's due to some help from DKW but got canned, they just carried on building there twin with no plans of what to replace it with untill no one wanted to buy it anymore. A 800cc rotary in the early 70's would have given a TZ750 a run for it's money, pity in never happened had to wait till the 80's to see the rotary developed and then it was to late.

[GrayWolf]

Many were producing crap .............

Triumph was indeed killed - some blame the Japanese but really it was the inability of the company to drag their arses into the modern world. I'm pretty sure they were still using coal fired machinery ......... I'll back that up by introducing any of the current lineup of most excellent Triumphs. Indeed the current (carbed) Bonnie has very little in the engineering department that Triumph could not have made in the 70's.

It is indeed a shame that Laverda is not producing kick arse big bore triples any more.

Harley Davidson - I note you ride one and fine machines the new Hogs - yet another maker who almost died in the AMF era and righly so with the crap they were churning out. The very best of your HD can be linked back to the Japanese, not to mention the dozens of Japanses parts on it. I'd not hesitate to own a new HD.

Ducatis current realibility is a result of public demand, a public who have been reared on push button run without problems bikes from Japan.

Interesting comments and good posts by all.

I may have to start a post on cruisers and Japans inability to break out of the HD immitations. I have a vision of a serious IL4 or triple cruiser as I fail to see why they have to be V twins. Shit Japan had great success with some (suspectly styled..) 80's 'cruisers'.

TRIUMPH was indeed 'killed'... Norton Villiers Triumph was the final death throe for the two major marques. Management killed off the triple.. which there were also a 900cc version built, and if it survived the fire at Birmingham, they had a Norton 900 triple on display.. Norton 850 interstate chassis, 900cc triple motor. Norman Hyde of the trident aftermarket bits, was involved in several development tweaks around the triple, most of which he built his 'empire' on sans the demise. Somehow the NVT management saw the 650/750 twin as the best bike... FFS. There was also a 350 fury twin and a rumoured 500cc Norton, which could almost, to match the japanese bikes performance of the same capacity... the fury was rushed into a limited prduction, and failed... it was rushed and not developed fully. The 500cc Norton was rumoured to have had a prototype engine made, then canned. There had been talk of a forged 120 degree crank for the trident. in reality the trident was as good (almost) in performance to the Nonda 750.
Kawasaki had indeed been developing 'new your steak' Z650/750, and more advanced than the honda DOHC as opposed to SOHC, just honda struck first, so KHI had to up the anti with a redesign to 900cc. BMW had a reputation for longevity and reliability, but at a high price, so the average rider couldnt justify/afford such an outlay.
In reality... Honda DID make their reputation on highly reliable 4 strokes.. the little old CB175, was a fantastic learner bike, and was thrashed day in day out,, and built a fantastic reputation for being robust in the hands of many learners. Yamaha built fast 2 strokes... as did Suzuki.. different markets, different engines and technical 'know how' to produce good ones.

[GrayWolf]

Honda didn't kill off the british bikes they did it to them self. The managment of triumph stopped a over head cam four from being developed, a prototype was made but no more delelopment was done as new tooling would have to be bought. The poor engineers where told to go back and try again but to design some thing that could be made with the exsisting machine tools, so we got the orginal trident. A Bonneville with a extra cylinder in the middle, all the Bonneville problems with a extra cylinder worth thrown in for good measure. And the machine tools where on there last legs due to years of underinvestment. If you make a shit product and some one comes along and makes a good product the public soon decides what it want's to buy.
Norton did the same with there rortary, it was running in prototype form in the late 60's due to some help from DKW but got canned, they just carried on building there twin with no plans of what to replace it with untill no one wanted to buy it anymore. A 800cc rotary in the early 70's would have given a TZ750 a run for it's money, pity in never happened had to wait till the 80's to see the rotary developed and then it was to late.

The Trident/rocket was a speed twin 500 + a half, not a bonneville. There were fixes produced 'in house' by the race team for the trident.. Norman Hyde and co. What also did for Meridan, was the huge debts left by NVT with the suppliers... they were often unable to produce bikes in any number as they were literally living hand to mouth towards the end. When the Norton Rotary DID prove successful, the japanese simply lobbied it out of contention for Formula 1. This has always been the arguement around a rotary.. is it a 1300cc like the Mazda RX8 claims, or is it really a 3.9litre engine, as in effect a rotary operates like a 2T, and fires 3 times for every revolution...

[nudemetalz]

....
I had a 1972 Laverda 750 that the eyeties unashamedly copied directly off a Honda CB72. So, yeah, thanks Soichiro!.....


What ya mean by that?? ;)

[FJRider]

I may have to start a post on cruisers and Japans inability to break out of the HD immitations. I have a vision of a serious IL4 or triple cruiser as I fail to see why they have to be V twins. Shit Japan had great success with some (suspectly styled..) 80's 'cruisers'.

In my youth I saw and rode the Kawasaki LTD series inline fours ... and owned a Suzuki GS1000 L series ... (another IL4 series) ... Yamaha had the Midnight Express series (The XS based ones as I recall)... in black ... and beautiful.

[merv]

What ya mean by that?? ;)

Funny that, I never thought of how similar the engines looked until now seeing those pics side by side.

[dangerous]

Funny that, I never thought of how similar the engines looked until now seeing those pics side by side.
ever seen the Honda 500 four next to the Moto Guzzi 500 four?



I have a vision of a serious IL4 or triple cruiser as I fail to see why they have to be V twins. COS... fours belong in cars man...
how bout the IL4 Kawa Eliminator? that was awesome.

[george formby]

If only Honda had bigger balls to go with their marketing & engineering savvy........

When the CRM active radical came out I thought it was the saviour of 2t's. The technology was / is amazing but they shelved it. Pants!:mad:

This thread has reminded me I have to start the Yammie up, battery will be getting a bit low.......;)

[nudemetalz]

ever seen the Honda 500 four next to the Moto Guzzi 500 four?


COS... fours belong in cars man...

Was the MG 500/4 a rebadged Benelli 500/4 or was it that the Benelli a rebadged MG 500/4 ?

Agreed both look like the Honda..

(yes the Guzzi is a 400..)

[merv]

So the Italians copied Honda, who'd Honda supposedly copy then according to those that say the Jap's are copiers not innovators?

[GrayWolf]

Was the MG 500/4 a rebadged Benelli 500/4 or was it that the Benelli a rebadged MG 500/4 ?

Agreed both look like the Honda..

(yes the Guzzi is a 400..)

The Nonda 500-4 Benelli did copy, it was also the basis for the 750/900 6cylinder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benelli_Sei

[gammaguy]

DANGEROUS said:
I may have to start a post on cruisers and Japans inability to break out of the HD immitations. I have a vision of a serious IL4 or triple cruiser as I fail to see why they have to be V twins. Shit Japan had great success with some (suspectly styled..) 80's 'cruisers'.

even BMW are quoted as saying the reason they stopped making a cruiser was because it did not have a V Twin engine

The punters that ride them seem to think they are essential for street cred or whatever reason they have for riding them.

[dangerous]

DANGEROUS said:

even BMW are quoted as saying the reason they stopped making a cruiser was because it did not have a V Twin engine

The punters that ride them seem to think they are essential for street cred or whatever reason they have for riding them.

ok so a cruiser would be my very last choice... but a Vtwin is the very essance of a motor bike closely followed by the single and parallel twin, the sound the vibe the power delivery all represent the bike, meh muiltys smooth sewing machine sounding bland as...

*disclaimer, yes there are the ecptions like the RG5, honda 6, areil4, henderson etc

[ducatilover]

ok so a cruiser would be my very last choice... but a Vtwin is the very essance of a motor bike closely followed by the single and parallel twin, the sound the vibe the power delivery all represent the bike, meh muiltys smooth sewing machine sounding bland as...

*disclaimer, yes there are the ecptions like the RG5, honda 6, areil4, henderson etc I've found I can have fun on a twin at far more sane speeds than my 600, if you enjoy the top end rush it has (It has a rather potent one of them) you'll be doing the double ton in an instant, it gives me the shits.
I need another twin!

[Fast Eddie]

200 mph from ur 600! crikey ;)

i ike twins, they are lazier, sounds nice etc.. nice a ride.

Thanks Tadao Baba for the fireblade, my favourite 90s bike with the 2 strokers aside.
Love the NR too

and kawasaki from pre 90's :D thats just me tho.

can't think of any modern bike i'd actually want to fork out money for, certainly not a jap.. have to be a wanky ducati or mv or aprilia or i quite like the s1000rr these days but thats the german patriotism coming out.

flag it, spend it on racebikes and sidecars instead, blade and 2 strokes all i need on the public roads

[ducatilover]

200 mph from ur 600! crikey ;)

My 600 is faster than you, your missus was well impressed. :nya:

[AllanB]

A IL4 can easily be designed to out grunt a V twin and could be styled low slung and mean looking. I struggle to understand why the HD and HD clones need to be so darn overweight! Surely a stripped down light weight bike with a big arse motor is the essence of a street cruiser. I'm thinking somewhere along the way the concept got bastardised (SP?) into the road trains presently in production.

Maybe I am thinking of a new caterogy - lets call it the hot rod as street rod has been taken by a overweight V twin .......

[FJRider]

A IL4 can easily be designed to out grunt a V twin and could be styled low slung and mean looking. I struggle to understand why the HD and HD clones need to be so darn overweight! Surely a stripped down light weight bike with a big arse motor is the essence of a street cruiser. I'm thinking somewhere along the way the concept got bastardised (SP?) into the road trains presently in production.

Maybe I am thinking of a new caterogy - lets call it the hot rod as street rod has been taken by a overweight V twin .......

Torque has more to do with the length of the stroke ... rather than engine configuration ...

[dangerous]

Maybe I am thinking of a new caterogy - lets call it the hot rod as street rod has been taken by a overweight V twin .......Something like the HD Mussle (only HD Ill admit to wanting) but loaded with a 4 and lightened?
the CBR street fighter Hornet thing not do it for ya?

267489 267490

[willytheekid]

To put this thread back on track, may I present for your viewing pleasure....One of the best bikes and engines EVER made by Honda



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFvwymR9U0o&feature=related


....pure friggin sex! (and all the characteristics of an IL4 & Vtwin ;))


Just to rub it in...a collection of the best from Honda :cool:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRImwEqyKhk

...your welcome! :yes:

[caseye]

Dreaming again mate?
Nice vids.

[Edbear]

Torque has more to do with the length of the stroke ... rather than engine configuration ...

Torque is great! Can never have too much torque! In NZ with its roads and traffic, being able to whack the throttle and go instantly is the best way around!

With a high-HP, high revving motor you need to be in the right gear or you miss the opportunity. I found the C50T and the Suzuki FA1250to be very good in that regard. The 1250 was like an electric motor!

[AllanB]

Something like the HD Mussle (only HD Ill admit to wanting) but loaded with a 4 and lightened?
the CBR street fighter Hornet thing not do it for ya?

267489 267490

The Horny is still floating my boat.

The cruiser concept apeals to a degree as a custom base - they just all presently look the same ................ serioulsy they do not need to be V twins.

RE torque - a long stroke IL4 or triple will spin the earth if set up correctly - heck Suzukis own GSX1400 is a grunter of a engine and that is in a seriousluy mild state to what they could do.

Triumph are showing a willinness to have a crack at going their own way - maybe a 1600cc IL3 'sport' cruiser is on their drawing boards.

[Edbear]

V-Max... :2thumbsup

[GrayWolf]

The Horny is still floating my boat.

The cruiser concept apeals to a degree as a custom base - they just all presently look the same ................ serioulsy they do not need to be V twins.

RE torque - a long stroke IL4 or triple will spin the earth if set up correctly - heck Suzukis own GSX1400 is a grunter of a engine and that is in a seriousluy mild state to what they could do.

Triumph are showing a willinness to have a crack at going their own way - maybe a 1600cc IL3 'sport' cruiser is on their drawing boards.

The Japs DID the IL4 custom thing, and the V4 custom thing... I had the ZL1000 in the 80's,, Suzuki did the Madura, Yam the V max and Honda used the V4 sabre motor (cant remember the bikes name, sorry) I can agree the kwack had amazing grunt, it out accelerated a Max to 50mph, then V boost kicks in. In top gear it would pull from 1500rpm to the red line in an almost linear fashion. The Torque produced by all these bikes was outstanding in the day.. at 2-3,000 rpm they all out torqued ANY sport bike, and literally doubled it every 3000rpm after. They were all 'retuned' for grunt (drag strip acceleration) However.. they all still rev high and produced high BHP.. short stroke motors. There is why even the GSX1400, which is phenomenal still revs to double what a big V twin does, for just about the same Torque and only 10-15 bhp more. The power delivery is simply completely different for feel.

[ducatilover]

With a high-HP, high revving motor you need to be in the right gear or you miss the opportunity. I found the C50T and the Suzuki FA1250to be very good in that regard. The 1250 was like an electric motor!

Take a late model thou out for a tootle and try say that again :2thumbsup it's all down to how much moolah they want to lay in to an engine. More revs = more torque, gear it correctly and it doesn't matter how many revs you do.

[GrayWolf]

Take a late model thou out for a tootle and try say that again :2thumbsup it's all down to how much moolah they want to lay in to an engine. More revs = more torque, gear it correctly and it doesn't matter how many revs you do.

more revs = more HP or higher top speed, most of your high power 4 cyl,s have a higher BHP (considerably higher) in relation to the torque figures.
example Z1000 (2012) BHP 125 @ 10k rpm, torque 73ft lbs of torque @8k rpm. This is an engine 'tuned' for mid range power.

2012 ZX10r On the dyno the Kawasaki has lost its rating as the second most powerful bike on the block now that the Panigale has been introduced. Even so, the ZX-10R wasn’t far behind producing 162.96 horsepower and 74.78 lb-ft of torque. <<< BHP at 11k rpm...
http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/156/13353/Motorcycle-Article/2012-Kawasaki-ZX-10R-Street-Comparison.aspx

No thanks I'll stick to my long stroke 3.8 inch V twin that has a higher torque output by around 30% over the BHP figures Thats what your short stroke high revving 4 cyl's cannot reproduce.

[Edbear]

Take a late model thou out for a tootle and try say that again :2thumbsup it's all down to how much moolah they want to lay in to an engine. More revs = more torque, gear it correctly and it doesn't matter how many revs you do.

Power to weight ratio has a major influence. The thousand's are so overpowered it makes little difference as they are rockets from any speed in any gear!

[ducatilover]

No thanks I'll stick to my long stroke 3.8 inch V twin that has a higher torque output by around 30% over the BHP figures Thats what your short stroke high revving 4 cyl's cannot reproduce.
Make a short stroke 1670cc IL4 and then try that argument.
Look at the torque curve on an '08 onwards CBR1000. Flatter than an MT curve with a lot more torque per cc.
Your engine makes whopping torque purely because it's large capacity, and for a 1670cc motor has a very low torque/cc ratio (149nm or so)
The real secret to power torque is an engine's BMEP (brake mean effective pressure).
Higher BMEP is a more efficient motor
Higher BMEP is something we see in Porsche's late model motors, Hondas higher performance B/K/F series motors etc etc all have a high BMEP and high torque/cc with flat torque curves.
Engine tech has come a long way and basically, the more cylinders you have for a given cc these days, the more power and torque you'll have.


I'm not knocking the MT, it is a torque monster, but only because it has a massive displacement advantage.


Power to weight ratio has a major influence. The thousand's are so overpowered it makes little difference as they are rockets from any speed in any gear!
Power to weight is king, in every way. ;)

[GrayWolf]

Make a short stroke 1670cc IL4 and then try that argument.
Look at the torque curve on an '08 onwards CBR1000. Flatter than an MT curve with a lot more torque per cc.
Your engine makes whopping torque purely because it's large capacity, and for a 1670cc motor has a very low torque/cc ratio (149nm or so)
The real secret to power torque is an engine's BMEP (brake mean effective pressure).
Higher BMEP is a more efficient motor
Higher BMEP is something we see in Porsche's late model motors, Hondas higher performance B/K/F series motors etc etc all have a high BMEP and high torque/cc with flat torque curves.
Engine tech has come a long way and basically, the more cylinders you have for a given cc these days, the more power and torque you'll have.


I'm not knocking the MT, it is a torque monster, but only because it has a massive displacement advantage.


Power to weight is king, in every way. ;)

Agreed power to weight is king for performance. However the arguement of theMT's massive displacement advantage, is 'balanced out' by the stroke length, (low rev limit) AND ITS VERY MILD STATE OF TUNE. The BMEP cannot be argued with for outright performance, the arguement is... even if the CBR etc have a 'flat' torque curve, the bike is about outright top end performance and is tuned for such, hence massive BHP to Torque ratio.. the low tuned motors, HD, Jap Cruisers, Guzzi, etc have a much closer BHP/torque ratio to the point like the MT/HD, of higher torque output to BHP..... A 4 cyl is of course going to accelerate harder it fires every revolution of the crank, not every other rev'. Short stroke allows for higher rev ceilings and thereby faster pick up as each piston has less distance to travel per stroke.
Simple test,, try putting a double adult watsonian sidecar on your CBR1000, and see how poorly it can handle the loading,,, yet an old BSA A10 with around >50 BHP (650 twin) was the frequent bike of choice for JUST such aperatus...... It'll put your 'BMEP' is king calculation straight out the window.

[AllanB]

Ha sitting here reading I must correct my own post - Troumph DO make a IL3 cruiser - the engine is just spun around 90 degrees! That ride is huge though! I suspect it will last forever as every aspet of the engine appears to be over done. Apply the same care to light weight and slimless as they do sports bikes and you'll have a more compact machine.

[ducatilover]

Agreed power to weight is king for performance. However the arguement of theMT's massive displacement advantage, is 'balanced out' by the stroke length, (low rev limit) AND ITS VERY MILD STATE OF TUNE. The BMEP cannot be argued with for outright performance, the arguement is... even if the CBR etc have a 'flat' torque curve, the bike is about outright top end performance and is tuned for such, hence massive BHP to Torque ratio.. the low tuned motors, HD, Jap Cruisers, Guzzi, etc have a much closer BHP/torque ratio to the point like the MT/HD, of higher torque output to BHP..... A 4 cyl is of course going to accelerate harder it fires every revolution of the crank, not every other rev'. Short stroke allows for higher rev ceilings and thereby faster pick up as each piston has less distance to travel per stroke.
Simple test,, try putting a double adult watsonian sidecar on your CBR1000, and see how poorly it can handle the loading,,, yet an old BSA A10 with around >50 BHP (650 twin) was the frequent bike of choice for JUST such aperatus...... It'll put your 'BMEP' is king calculation straight out the window.
The CBR makes more torque per liter. You saying, the MT will out gun a current gen 'Busa taken out to 1670cc with a passenger on the back? ;) In this day and age we don't have so many issues of old with low end power/high end power compromise.
Back, way back when, it was an issue and yes, was true. But, now we have the ability to make massive torque per liter over the whole rev range, VVT etc etc is all the key here and very clever cam profiles.
Take the BMW E46 M3 for example, it has a 3.2 il6 (S54B32 if you really want to look it up). Note the torque per liter on that, it's a high revving engine.
Then observe how much torque on of them makes off idle, one version of the S54B32 makes 372nm, 1nm less than a supercharged Commonwhore 3.8 v6 and at lower revs than the Commonwhore. Why? Because it's a well designed engine.
A well designed engine out performs the old trick of big stroke everywhere, every time.

We could also make a 4cyl with the same rev limit and CC as the MT and I'll put a fair few $$ on it out performing the MT.
Got a cool few million for me to make a new motor?

[ducatilover]

Ha sitting here reading I must correct my own post - Troumph DO make a IL3 cruiser - the engine is just spun around 90 degrees! That ride is huge though! I suspect it will last forever as every aspet of the engine appears to be over done. Apply the same care to light weight and slimless as they do sports bikes and you'll have a more compact machine.
To my knowledge they had a fair few gearbox issues? Most things will when trying to push 200 ish nm through a tiny gearbox though :D

[GrayWolf]

The CBR makes more torque per liter. You saying, the MT will out gun a current gen 'Busa taken out to 1670cc with a passenger on the back? ;) In this day and age we don't have so many issues of old with low end power/high end power compromise.
Back, way back when, it was an issue and yes, was true. But, now we have the ability to make massive torque per liter over the whole rev range, VVT etc etc is all the key here and very clever cam profiles.
Take the BMW E46 M3 for example, it has a 3.2 il6 (S54B32 if you really want to look it up). Note the torque per liter on that, it's a high revving engine.
Then observe how much torque on of them makes off idle, one version of the S54B32 makes 372nm, 1nm less than a supercharged Commonwhore 3.8 v6 and at lower revs than the Commonwhore. Why? Because it's a well designed engine.
A well designed engine out performs the old trick of big stroke everywhere, every time.

We could also make a 4cyl with the same rev limit and CC as the MT and I'll put a fair few $$ on it out performing the MT.
Got a cool few million for me to make a new motor?

:brick:
OK lets examine this... if you look at an MT (for arguement sake) 65 ft lbs per litre, so you can argue that it produces less ft lbs than a CBR (74lbs)
You then throw a car engine into the equation... different strokes mate!! It's still a much longer stroke than your 'busa engine, high revving or not.. and 'high revving' is likely to be 8-9000rpm not the 14k of a busa. You avoid answering the obvious re the BSA and a sidecar..... reciprocating mass..... the low revving long stroke motor has a much higher level of kinetic energy stored in the reciprocating components,,, thats why your sprot bike revs up so bloody fast, little to no reciprocating mass, and yes of course a 1670cc 'busa would destroy an MT. It's STILL a short stroke high revving, fast pick up 4 cyl, compared to a long stroke V twin with push rods, not even OHC.... funny thing is without a turbo, the MT has easily been tuned to 115 bhp and around 130ft lbs of torque. A 'very low boost' turbo one produced 160bhp and almost 200 ft lbs....... still none of these versions rev higher than 6k rpm.
the biggest 'crippler' for any large bore, long stroke motor is the inability to move sufficient 'mass of air' on induction and exhaust. Something a 4 cyl will always do better. Half the capacity per cylinder and equally as large airbox/injector/carby/exhaust.
You can enjoy your 4 cyl, I still have one (ZZR1.1) if I want the rush when riding :crazy:....... I prefer feeling the motor working as I open the throttle :headbang:

[ducatilover]

:brick:
OK lets examine this... if you look at an MT (for arguement sake) 65 ft lbs per litre, so you can argue that it produces less ft lbs than a CBR (74lbs)
You then throw a car engine into the equation... different strokes mate!! It's still a much longer stroke than your 'busa engine, high revving or not.. and 'high revving' is likely to be 8-9000rpm not the 14k of a busa. You avoid answering the obvious re the BSA and a sidecar..... reciprocating mass..... the low revving long stroke motor has a much higher level of kinetic energy stored in the reciprocating components,,, thats why your sprot bike revs up so bloody fast, little to no reciprocating mass, and yes of course a 1670cc 'busa would destroy an MT. It's STILL a short stroke high revving, fast pick up 4 cyl, compared to a long stroke V twin with push rods, not even OHC.... funny thing is without a turbo, the MT has easily been tuned to 115 bhp and around 130ft lbs of torque. A 'very low boost' turbo one produced 160bhp and almost 200 ft lbs....... still none of these versions rev higher than 6k rpm.
the biggest 'crippler' for any large bore, long stroke motor is the inability to move sufficient 'mass of air' on induction and exhaust. Something a 4 cyl will always do better. Half the capacity per cylinder and equally as large airbox/injector/carby/exhaust.
You can enjoy your 4 cyl, I still have one (ZZR1.1) if I want the rush when riding :crazy:....... I prefer feeling the motor working as I open the throttle :headbang:


Righto, grab me a BSA and a CBR thou, we'll do a roll on up a hill with weight strapped to each. Not a fair example though. As the BSA is lacking in displacement.


Another example ;)
Gear a ZZR11 and an XV1100 to be doing the same revs at any given speed (similar displacement, one a higher revving motor, the other a long stroke/low revs motor) load 'em up, do roll on tests up a hill.
That's a reasonably fair test innit?


Or an even better example, the current VMAX is 1679cc isn't it?
Find one, do the same test but with your MT.
The VMAX has a better designed engine and makes fairly nice power/cc and great torque/cc. Perfect for my case


Can I ride all the bikes in these tests too please? :cool:

Remember, all bikes in the tests must be doing the same revs at 100k.
If the MT diddles 'em all, I'll buy a beer per victory. (No not the Victory bikes, horrid things)

[GrayWolf]

Righto, grab me a BSA and a CBR thou, we'll do a roll on up a hill with weight strapped to each. Not a fair example though. As the BSA is lacking in displacement.


Another example ;)
Gear a ZZR11 and an XV1100 to be doing the same revs at any given speed (similar displacement, one a higher revving motor, the other a long stroke/low revs motor) load 'em up, do roll on tests up a hill. >>> And as I own a ZZR1100, I have pointed out, the MT is about as quick, if not slightly quicker through bends.
That's a reasonably fair test innit?


Or an even better example, the current VMAX is 1679cc isn't it?
Find one, do the same test but with your MT.
The VMAX has a better designed engine and makes fairly nice power/cc and great torque/cc. Perfect for my case


Can I ride all the bikes in these tests too please? :cool:

Remember, all bikes in the tests must be doing the same revs at 100k.
If the MT diddles 'em all, I'll buy a beer per victory. (No not the Victory bikes, horrid things)

:brick::brick::brick: You still avoid the point, they are ALL 4cl bikes Vs a twin. All short stroke Vs Long stroke.. even the Vmax stroke is considerably shorter than an MT and the displacement is 'substantialy' oversquare..... hence why the 'big bang' motor works so well 'mimics' the displacement of a big twin, but with a short stroke crank... Perfect example of a short stroke big inch V twin is the M109 produces 125bhp and high torque figures... but still has the limiting factor of shifting enough air/gas, and only firing every other revolution.
Vmax still has less displacement per cylinder, so has a better throughput of air/gas in and out per CC. beside the V boost system when operating.

As for the weight on a CBR Vs an A10? that isnt an accurate test, there is drag, friction and OFFSET mass to overcome.... strapping lead weights is not in any way an accurate representation.. however, my first guess would be on a ride to say Hamiltron? If you went over the Taka's The CBR clutch would be fried before you got to far.

[ducatilover]

I thought the debate was a better designed engine works better?
I'm lost, so I'm bowing out (I lose)

I still do want to ride the MT though
:2thumbsup

[FJRider]

I thought the debate was a better designed engine works better?
:2thumbsup

Surely it would depend on the purpose of an engine's intended use .... be it a cruiser/tourer/sunday scratcher/race bike.

[ducatilover]

Surely it would depend on the purpose of an engine's intended use .... be it a cruiser/tourer/sunday scratcher/race bike.

An engine with a big penis wins everytime.

[AllanB]

Surely it would depend on the purpose of an engine's intended use .... be it a cruiser/tourer/sunday scratcher/race bike.

Correct. As much as I like the look of a clean V cruiser and the power of a well designed one I do believe there is a large market for a IL4 version as a point of difference if you don't want a HD clone (or a HD for that matter).

I'm talking a clean sheet engine design or at least a severe modification to a existing one. So it may have a square or long stroke design and only rev to 6 -7 k if desired. Take all the good stuff learnt over the past 50 years and design a absolute grunter. The use of the V twin in this market by the copiers is fashion.

Interesting to read that Ducatis latest and greatest V twin designed to rev is getting negative comments about it's loss of midrange. Big bore, shorter stroke to gain revs .....

[ducatilover]

Interesting to read that Ducatis latest and greatest V twin designed to rev is getting negative comments about it's loss of midrange. Big bore, shorter stroke to gain revs ..... It needed a loss in mid range torque.
Without the use of variable valve timing etc there will still be a high rpm/low rpm power trade off.
Look at the twin air Alfa/Fiat motors, infinately variable valve timing on the intake side, massive power/torque at all revs.
There is far, far more to it than the simple "solution" of having a long throw crank/short rods.
Long stroke motors can be made to rev.
Short stroke motors can make massive torque, everywhere.

[Daffyd]

Honda used the V4 sabre motor (cant remember the bikes name, sorry)

Would that be the Magna?

[AllanB]

2007 Concept bike. Alas it remained that.

[ducatilover]

2007 Concept bike. Alas it remained that.

That's a tasty looking machine!

[dangerous]

2007 Concept bike. Alas it remained that.awesome... looks like the GL 1500 six, funny thing is had they built it it would have sold big time.

[GrayWolf]

It needed a loss in mid range torque.
Without the use of variable valve timing etc there will still be a high rpm/low rpm power trade off.
Look at the twin air Alfa/Fiat motors, infinately variable valve timing on the intake side, massive power/torque at all revs.
There is far, far more to it than the simple "solution" of having a long throw crank/short rods.
Long stroke motors can be made to rev.
Short stroke motors can make massive torque, everywhere.

yes/no... long stroke motors can be made to rev, to a point. The fact the piston EG MT01 is travelling 3.8inches, the limiting factor to rev ceiling and pick up, is piston speed, even with the modern design of piston, this is still a critical limiting factor.

In all honesty, you keep saying you want to ride an MT, I think you'd be highly disappointed. I'd expect your comment to be similar to TT's,,, of it being 'breathless'....
Our 'discussion' re engines, you see only BMEP, and 'efficiency' not the WAY power is delivered by different engine configurations.... I guess the easiest way would be to say after your 600, the MT would be like driving a diesel engine. As for your comparison of an VX1100 vs ZZR1100.... as the rev ceiling for both is completely different 8k Vs 11.5k,, setting the revs identically at 100kph in top gear would result in 2 outcomes, 1, set revs to XV at 100k's, ZZR is below its 'power zone of 6k' so the gap would be more narrow than you'd expect . If you raised the XV to identical revs of the ZZR, it may just pip it for a short space of time.
You keep including car engines as examples, reality is how MANY bikes have variable valve timing? makes it a 'moot' point in the present discussion.
I'd agree with another poster, a purpose made 1600cc 4cyl for torque with a 'low' rev ceiling would be bloody awesome,, just look at what Triumph produce with the Rocket motor

[ducatilover]

yes/no... long stroke motors can be made to rev, to a point. The fact the piston EG MT01 is travelling 3.8inches, the limiting factor to rev ceiling and pick up, is piston speed, even with the modern design of piston, this is still a critical limiting factor.

In all honesty, you keep saying you want to ride an MT, I think you'd be highly disappointed. I'd expect your comment to be similar to TT's,,, of it being 'breathless'....
Our 'discussion' re engines, you see only BMEP, and 'efficiency' not the WAY power is delivered by different engine configurations.... I guess the easiest way would be to say after your 600, the MT would be like driving a diesel engine. As for your comparison of an VX1100 vs ZZR1100.... as the rev ceiling for both is completely different 8k Vs 11.5k,, setting the revs identically at 100kph in top gear would result in 2 outcomes, 1, set revs to XV at 100k's, ZZR is below its 'power zone of 6k' so the gap would be more narrow than you'd expect . If you raised the XV to identical revs of the ZZR, it may just pip it for a short space of time.
You keep including car engines as examples, reality is how MANY bikes have variable valve timing? makes it a 'moot' point in the present discussion.
I'd agree with another poster, a purpose made 1600cc 4cyl for torque with a 'low' rev ceiling would be bloody awesome,, just look at what Triumph produce with the Rocket motor

I love low revving engines, relaxed motors like the MT. Doesn't mean I can't be an advocate for technologically advanced motors :D
I doubt I'd be disappointed with 150nm, I think you'd have to sew my face shut after it splits from grins.

I'll carry on beleiving what I do, even though I'm wrong. Just hand me the bloody keys

(btw the I legally one eyed, so my ignorance is actually okay)

I went out on my lack of torque bike today (a whopping 68nm) and enjoyed it immensely.

[nudemetalz]

............................I'd agree with another poster, a purpose made 1600cc 4cyl for torque with a 'low' rev ceiling would be bloody awesome,, just look at what Triumph produce with the Rocket motor

Just very slightly off the subject,..Honda have released the NC700X which has a rev ceiling of only 6500rpm, relying on built for torque.
Every single road-test I've read so far complains about it running out of revs way too quick,...ironic that it's closest competitor is the Kwaka Versys has a redline of 10,500rpm and is approx same displacement and apparently have a decent amount of torque to boot.

[GrayWolf]

Just very slightly off the subject,..Honda have released the NC700X which has a rev ceiling of only 6500rpm, relying on built for torque.
Every single road-test I've read so far complains about it running out of revs way too quick,...ironic that it's closest competitor is the Kwaka Versys has a redline of 10,500rpm and is approx same displacement and apparently have a decent amount of torque to boot.

Isnt it funny how 'generational' influence? works... I grew up with bikes that revved out at around 6k (brit iron) then Jap bikes that redlined at 8-8.5k rpm.... To me the modern redlines of 13-14k on large capacity bikes, and the 16-20k redlines of the sprot 250's... that just seems insane... The NC700 sounds a great bike, lets hope people get on board the idea that revs are not always the way to go.....

[ducatilover]

There's something satisfying about my little toy hitting 15krpm between corners.
I enjoy it, I wouldn't trade what I've built for anything.
But, I do see the love of torque, but on the roads I ride, that'd be far too easy ;)
My baby doesn't exactly hang around on a bad day