Torque competition.

[White trash]

How's this for an idea.

Due to the V-twin versus inline torque debate in another thread, let's put our money where our mouths are, so to speak.

Find (accurate) torque readings of the bike YOU own and post 'em here. No big mods please e.g turbos or nitrous. Pipes, filters and engine management is OK. This means no big bores or stroker kits. Bike must be close to stock.

Then, perhaps, we could take the 5 biggest torquers to a Dyno house for a back to back, base run shoot out. Who's keen?

As soon as I can find the torque figures for mine, I'll post 'em. An early dyno graph would be helpfull to estimate ridability too.

Go for it.

[campbellluke]

I submit my bike for the inline 4's.

40 hp/ 13,500 rpm, 2,7 kg-m/ 10,000 rpm.

[mattt]

My bikes got dick :tugger:

A bigger one is on it's way by summer :clap:

Will find out on Friday if it corners good. Me thinks it might :wait:

[onearmedbandit]

My bikes got dick :tugger:

A bigger one is on it's way by summer :clap:

Will find out on Friday if it corners good. Me thinks it might :wait:

Ummm, yeah. Didn't take long for this to get fucked up....

[Waylander]

How would I get it tested to find out how much it's got?

[Bonez]

I submit my bike for the inline 4's.

40 hp/ 13,500 rpm, 2,7 kg-m/ 10,000 rpm.I'm disapointed singles haven't been included :weird: The mighty GB releases a wopping 3.4 kg-m at 6,000 rpm :Punk:

[DEATH_INC.]

I'm pissed at not being included with the turbo,after all it was a factory turbo....

[mattt]

Ummm, yeah. Didn't take long for this to get fucked up....

kiwibiker.co.nz not onearmedbanditbiker.co.nz :motu:

[GSVR]

Triumph Rocket 3

Performance (Measured at crankshaft to DIN 70020) Maximum Power 142PS (140bhp) at 5,750 rpm
Maximum Torque 200Nm (147ft.lbf) at 2,500 rpm

This beats all the big Vee twins and has a faster 0-60 than a Busa.

Looking forward to someone posting something with more torque!

Whats that Australian V8 racebike again?

[White trash]

Triumph Rocket 3

Performance (Measured at crankshaft to DIN 70020) Maximum Power 142PS (140bhp) at 5,750 rpm
Maximum Torque 200Nm (147ft.lbf) at 2,500 rpm

This beats all the big Vee twins and has a faster 0-60 than a Busa.

Looking forward to someone posting something with more torque!

Whats that Australian V8 racebike again?

But Garry, you don't got a RIII. Also, it aint an inline four or a V-Twin. And I'm talkin' road bikes, not some Koala rooting race thingy.....

Edit: And Triumph will tell ya it beats a Busa, let's see it on the strip. A pommy bike mag's already proven it doesn't.

You're welcome.

[bugjuice]

off a friends 636 in the states..
ok, so no where near a twin or thou.. but i like it.. just needs to be dyno'd in a wind tunnel for the Ramair bit to work.. and that might get a few more ponies...

[jimbo600]

Damnit. I though it was a competition on who knows the most about the awesome movie Torque.

Burn rubber not your soul...............oh right hang on that was the other awesome movie biker boyz.

[Riff Raff]

How about 71 rear wheel dynojet bhp with 60Nm of torque on the SV650S?

[Bonez]

But Garry, you don't got a RIII. Also, it aint an inline four or a V-Twin. And I'm talkin' road bikes, not some Koala rooting race thingy.....

Edit: And Triumph will tell ya it beats a Busa, let's see it on the strip. A pommy bike mag's already proven it doesn't.

You're welcome.Tis nice to see NON BIAS reports aint it? :clap:

[Pixie]

Damnit. I though it was a competition on who knows the most about the awesome movie Torque.

Burn rubber not your soul...............oh right hang on that was the other awesome movie biker boyz.
It may as well be.
Graphs and numbers are irrelevant.
The only conclusive test is to match the bikes' acceleration from the same speed,in the same gear for each gear

Back in the late seventies I used this test to shut up my mates when I got tired of their constant boasting about their yamaha XT and TT 500 singles.
My RD 350 cleaned them up.

[Motu]

Give me a wet Tshirt contest any day....but carry on guys :weird:

[unhingedlizard]

TDR250 ok its not a vee but its a twin.

About 1.2nm of torque, with BS factor so more like .88nm

[crash harry]

OK since someone already posted stats for a R3 that they don't have, can I post for a Boss Hoss (http://www.bosshoss.com) that I don't have?

Boss Hoss BHC-3 502
502 hp, 567 ft.lb of torque

OK, so it aint a V-twin or a I4...

[k14]

Well I dont have any dyno runs to prove but I would estimate that my twin puts out about 10-12hp and 2/3's of fuck all, Nm of torque.

[Sensei]

V-TWINS
999s = 71.4 ft-lbs
RSV Tuono = 72.4 ft-lbs
RC51 = 72.6 ft-lbs
V11 Guzzi = 78.2 ft lbs
XB12R = 77.5 ft lbs
VTR 1000 = 68.3 ft lbs

INLINE 4
CBR1100XX = 83.7 ft lbs
ZX10R =80 ft lbs
R1 = 74.4 ft lbs
CBR1000RR = 75.9 ft lbs
GSXR1000 = 79.8 ft lbs
GSXR1300R = 99.6 ft lbs

Well there you have it . Sure looks like The V-TWINS don't have the Torque as they once did . But didn't need to tell all the GSXR owners that as we all ready KNOW This !!!!!!!!!!!!!! :motu:

[Eurodave]

Thats me shot down in flames......BUGGER!!

[WINJA]

V-TWINS
999s = 71.4 ft-lbs
RSV Tuono = 72.4 ft-lbs
RC51 = 72.6 ft-lbs
V11 Guzzi = 78.2 ft lbs
XB12R = 77.5 ft lbs
VTR 1000 = 68.3 ft lbs

INLINE 4
CBR1100XX = 83.7 ft lbs
ZX10R =80 ft lbs
R1 = 74.4 ft lbs
CBR1000RR = 75.9 ft lbs
GSXR1000 = 79.8 ft lbs
GSXR1300R = 99.6 ft lbs

Well there you have it . Sure looks like The V-TWINS don't have the Torque as they once did . But didn't need to tell all the GSXR owners that as we all ready KNOW This !!!!!!!!!!!!!! :motu:
FIND THE CBR1100XX ONE TO BE UNBELIEVABLE , CAUSE ME AND CRAZY STEVE DID ROLL ONS FROM 100 AND FOUND WHEN HES IN 4TH I CAN USE 6TH AND ITS CLOSE , IF HE USES 5TH AND I USE SIXTH HE HAS NO CHANCE

[Sensei]

[QUOTE=WINJA]FIND THE CBR1100XX ONE TO BE UNBELIEVABLE ,


Thats what they have been tested at Winja . Haven't made these up . Road roll on's can vary alot .

[k14]

FIND THE CBR1100XX ONE TO BE UNBELIEVABLE , CAUSE ME AND CRAZY STEVE DID ROLL ONS FROM 100 AND FOUND WHEN HES IN 4TH I CAN USE 6TH AND ITS CLOSE , IF HE USES 5TH AND I USE SIXTH HE HAS NO CHANCE
I'd say that the extra 100kg or so that the blackbird has over the gixxer would be the reason there.

[matthewt]

Where do you get 71.4 for the 999s ??

www.ducati.com lists it as 11.4kgm which equals 82.4 ft-lbs. Provided that's acurate it then beats all the 1000cc inline 4's. Granted the 1100XX and busa have more torque, but as they say "There's no replacement for displacement".

FWIW the MV Agusta 1000-f4 has 80.25 ft-lbs which puts it ahead of the GXSR/R1/ZX10. :Punk:

[WINJA]

I'd say that the extra 100kg or so that the blackbird has over the gixxer would be the reason there.
MAYBE . BUT THE DIFFERENCE WAS TOO BIG ME AND STEVE ARE ABOUT THE SAME WEIGHT AND I THINK THE BIRD IS BETTER IN THE AERODYNAMICS DEPARTMENT. THE DIFFERENCE REALLY SHOWS AT ABOUT 200 THE GIX JUST KILLS IT IN ROLL ONS

[Sensei]

[QUOTE=matthewt]Where do you get 71.4 for the 999s ??

Same place the other's come from . Dyno test runs .

MV Agusta 1000-f4 has 80.25 ft-lbs .Which is still a Inline-4 .
Not a V-Twin :weird:

[speedpro]

It's torque at the rear wheel at whatever speed you are doing the comparison. That is not the same as torque as measured at the rear wheel which is then used to calculate torque at the engine. The Triumph 3 has lots of torque calculated at the engine at L O W revs. At 100Kmh the engine is not geared down a lot to get the required wheel speed to do 100K so therefore there isn't much torque amplification due to gearing. A 'busa however makes less torque but at higher rpm. It needs to be geared down more for the back wheel to be doing 100kmh and this results in greater torque amplification and could result in more torque actually making it to the pavement at 100kmh.

It's all torque X rpm (=horsepower). Whichever motor is making more horsepower at any road speed, irrespective of how it makes it - torque or rpm, will accelerate the bike quicker if everything else is equal.

I always have a good laugh at claims of high torque, usually at low rpm, enabling a certain vehicle to accelerate quicker than some other vehicle. If that were true we'd all be clamouring for diesels.

Not explained very well but there are many instances where for example a ZX6 will out-accelerate some Hoggly Doggly from just about any speed in any gear which can be explained by gearing and torque amplification.

[matthewt]

MV Agusta 1000-f4 has 80.25 ft-lbs .Which is still a Inline-4 .
Not a V-Twin :weird:

Yer I know. I was including it on the inline-4 side of things. And having owned the 750-f4 I can confirm it's not a v-twin.

Besides this whole thread's a load of old wank anyway. I seriously doubt many people will buy one bike over another because of half a ft-lb or torque. They usually buy based on much more subjective things (brand loyality, looks, or whatever else takes there fancy). I've ridden a 1000-f4 and then today a 996sps. The mv would beat the Duc in straight line speed, I've no doubt about that. The mv also looks better (in my opinion) but I'd still rather own the 996sps, it was just a lot more "fun".

[Sensei]

As Nice as a 996 would be would still rather have a 851 / 888 just more classic & raw & thats what I look for in my bikes . Then old School feel . :yes:

[pritch]

The only conclusive test is to match the bikes' acceleration from the same speed,in the same gear for each gear

That can be misleading as well. The GSXR1000 will beat a CBR in a roll on contest but the magazine testers point out that this has more to do with the fact that the Honda is higher geared than anything else


And what all this Nm shit, doesn't anyone here speak English ? :devil2:

Actually I have been looking up some figures. There is no contest. The twins don't rate except in the mind of their owners which is all that matters really.

[pritch]

Not having had my bike tested, but then it isn't a performance machine anyway, I would like to offer the following:

These figures are all borrowed from that excellent publication BIKE.
They are all in foot pounds because the English still speak English.
(Well some of them... :-)

Typing and other errors are all mine.

Aprillia RSVR 67 @ 8000rpm
BMW 1150GS 73 @ 5300
Buell X12S 71 @ 5800
Cagiva Raptor 1000 67 @ 7000
Ducati 999S 70 @ 8100
Harley VRod 71 @ 7200
Honda SP2 68 @ 7700
VTR 1000 62 @ 6900
KTM Super Duke 74 @ 7000
Moto Guzzi Brava 64 @ 6000
Suzuki SV1000s 66 @ 7600

BMW K1200 LT 89 @ 8000
Honda CBR1100XX 79 @ 7400
CBR 1000 RR 75 @ 8500
Kawasaki ZX12R 93 @ 7700
ZX10R 76 @ 9400
MV Agusta 1000F4S 73 @ 10,000
Suzuki Hayabusa 95 @ 7000
GSXR 1000 80 @ 9500
Yamaha R1 72 @ 9900

This is not an exhaustive list some big cruisers and the big naked bikes mostly develop more torque.

Like Bob Dylan said, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

[Brian d marge]

My little Enfield 500cc single ..sits about 30 to 36 ft/lb ....and wieghs sod all ... and is 1/4 of the cost .....:ride:

Soooo in the 1st 10 foot ..I iz a zooming past you fellas ,,then err you lot sort of errrr change gear ..and set every radar off with in 100km..

But I will get a speeding ticket one day ...I will ....tail wind ...moon in the first quarter ....down hill ... tucked in behind the nacelle ....

Well at least my speedo is on my side ,,,it sort of bounces between 90 and 110 ...depending on the road surface ....

:devil2::rofl::rofl:

Stephen
Still an interesting comparison ...BTW have a look at the goldwings torque ...if I remember it wasnt a slouch.....

[DEATH_INC.]

What do those big assed triumphs make at the rear? (or did I miss it?)Gotta be the most don't they?
The reason that people think twins have lotsa torque is simple,they don't have the top end,so it makes 'em feel more powerful down low.Usta get the same thing on off-road bikes between two and four strokes,all the four stroke boys usta rave about how much torque they had ,but up a hill you could back a two stroke down to idle and pull away,but the old four strokes just gave up and stalled.Even the 500's.

[inlinefour]

I've just been given a FZ50 for the boy. I'll try to get some specs, but I doubt if it'll actually have any tourqe to speak of :devil2:

[TonyB]

Com'on people- don't any of you have dyno charts?
I submit mine. It has my FZR1000 plotted against a stock 04 R1. So you get two fours for the price of one. Please note that my bike shows no bottom end torque or HP because that is why it was in the shop- the dreaded 0-3000rpm miss. So Twin owners, don't use this to beat Fours over the head, OK?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v327/tonybl/Bike%20Stuff/FZR1000vR1HP.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v327/tonybl/Bike%20Stuff/FZR1000vR1.jpg

[SixPackBack]

I've just been given a FZ50 for the boy. I'll try to get some specs, but I doubt if it'll actually have any tourqe to speak of :devil2:

Hope your son enjoy's it :yes:

[White trash]

Yer I know. I was including it on the inline-4 side of things. And having owned the 750-f4 I can confirm it's not a v-twin.

Besides this whole thread's a load of old wank anyway. I seriously doubt many people will buy one bike over another because of half a ft-lb or torque.

YEAH?! Well I think YOU'RE a load of lod wank!!

[inlinefour]

Hope your son enjoy's it :yes:

He said that its not cool enough for him (5 year old) and I actually agree. I've got it sorted, can swap it for a z50 or a 80cc dirt bike. I have not told the lad yet. I just said if he does not want it I'll have to find someone who does. I think he is now reconsidering which is more cool. A FZ50, or not bike at all.

[matthewt]

As Nice as a 996 would be would still rather have a 851 / 888 just more classic & raw & thats what I look for in my bikes . Then old School feel . :yes:

Yer, I missed out on a 888sp4 because I was leaving for holiday 2 days after I found it. Not so bad though as a friend of mine snapped it up.

[matthewt]

YEAH?! Well I think YOU'RE a load of lod wank!!

Ha ha, whats a lod ??? Besides, I wank just fine :rofl:

The whole thing changes every few years. Sure Suzuki is top now, but how long until Honda/Kawa/Yama leap-frog them.

[TwoSeven]

I'm not exactly sure what the argument is about.

If you have a v-series engine (eg. a v-four) and an inline 4 that both have the same bore, stroke and gearing you will get the same amount of torque from both.

The difference between the two is in *how* the torque is delivered. If both have the same timing, then you will get exactly the same torque delivery - both will be linear. If the v-series engine has a different timing (as they often do), then you will get pulsed delivery.

Usually the reason why an engine is put in a v-series is to increase the bore size for a given stroke which increases the torque given at the expense of the speed of rotation of the crank (because a bigger piston is heavier etc). Hence v-series engines tend to have more torque at lower rpm.

You could do the same with an inline-4 ,but it would be a rather big engine.

[Pixie]

That can be misleading as well. The GSXR1000 will beat a CBR in a roll on contest but the magazine testers point out that this has more to do with the fact that the Honda is higher geared than anything else


And what all this Nm shit, doesn't anyone here speak English ? :devil2:

Actually I have been looking up some figures. There is no contest. The twins don't rate except in the mind of their owners which is all that matters really.
Who gives a toss if you have a bigger number (or penis for that matter) if the smaller one out performs it in the real world? :whocares:

You may as well argue that vehicle X beats vehicle Y,but that's just because vehicle Y was running on Diesel :weird:

In the case of the GSXR, it beats the CBR in a roll on,all else is excuses

[slob]

I thought the whole point of this thread was to compare torque curves, not peak torque figures. I haven't experience too many litre bikes, but I'm pretty sure my old '98 TL1000S had a bit more thrust than a '98 R1 I tried up to about 4k rpm?

Torque figures aside, without looking at the HP curves, you wouldn't really get an idea of how quickly the engine revs - and thus how it accelerates. It's all well and good to have heaps of torque at the low to mid rev ranges, but what if it takes ages to get to the redline (think tractor engines..)?
Personally, my ideal road/track-day bike (which I will build one fine hypothetical day) would weigh less than a 250, have about 100hp and heaps of torque everywhere (I'm thinking supermono or hotted up mid-sized twin here)! :Punk:

[Ixion]

I thought the whole point of this thread was to compare torque curves, not peak torque figures. I haven't experience too many litre bikes, but I'm pretty sure my old '98 TL1000S had a bit more thrust than a '98 R1 I tried up to about 4k rpm?

Torque figures aside, without looking at the HP curves, you wouldn't really get an idea of how quickly the engine revs - and thus how it accelerates. It's all well and good to have heaps of torque at the low to mid rev ranges, but what if it takes ages to get to the redline (think tractor engines..)?
Personally, my ideal road/track-day bike (which I will build one fine hypothetical day) would weigh less than a 250, have about 100hp and heaps of torque everywhere (I'm thinking supermono or hotted up mid-sized twin here)! :Punk:

Mr Slob is right. It is the curve (or more strictly, the area under the curve) that matters. A high peak torque figure may be meaningless, in extreme circumstances unusable

Imagine an extreme case. An engine with 120 ft pd at 8000 rpm. And 5 ft pd at everything under 7500 rpm.

Really high peak torque but you'd never be able to use it, because you wouldn't be able to get the bike up to 8000 rpm in any gear, because of the low torque at lower revs. The bike wouldn't even be rideable.

Conversely, a bike with a peak of only 50 ft pd but a very flat curve (45 ft pd at 1000 rpm !) might accelerate a lot faster than one with a higher but peaky peak torque. Because it has more power available at lower revs so it gets to its peak faster.

Peak torque is ony relevant on single speed engines.

[SixPackBack]

Endless pointless arguing.......if twins were capable of higher power outputs then why are they slowly slipping away in superbikes and supersports, and not visible at all in motogp.....hang on i know......fucken obviousFOURS RULE :Punk:

[WINJA]

I'm not exactly sure what the argument is about.

If you have a v-series engine (eg. a v-four) and an inline 4 that both have the same bore, stroke and gearing you will get the same amount of torque from both.

The difference between the two is in *how* the torque is delivered. If both have the same timing, then you will get exactly the same torque delivery - both will be linear. If the v-series engine has a different timing (as they often do), then you will get pulsed delivery.

Usually the reason why an engine is put in a v-series is to increase the bore size for a given stroke which increases the torque given at the expense of the speed of rotation of the crank (because a bigger piston is heavier etc). Hence v-series engines tend to have more torque at lower rpm.

You could do the same with an inline-4 ,but it would be a rather big engine.
ITS CRANK ANGLE YOUR TALKING ABOUT , THE TRX FIRES LIKE A V TWIN, AND A MOTOGP BIKE FIRES ANYWAY THEY WANT ACCORDING TO CRANK PLANE ANGLES AND CAMSHAFT CONFIGURATION

[unhingedlizard]

like to piont out also that Having ridden a TDR250, Cagiva Vraptor and Kawasaki ZX6r back to back that all this torque is pants. The TDR was the most fun under the limit, to have the same fun on the zx you had to be going much much faster and the vtwin cagiva was fun at low speeds too as you just sat there listening to the engine.

All fun in there own way. remember a bke can have no torque (2 strokes) no power (125cc sports) and look like crap (TDR250) but they are all still fun.

[Pixie]

Mr Slob is right. It is the curve (or more strictly, the area under the curve) that matters. A high peak torque figure may be meaningless, in extreme circumstances unusable

.
And this is what my testing method displays

[Pixie]

like to piont out also that Having ridden a TDR250, Cagiva Vraptor and Kawasaki ZX6r back to back that all this torque is pants. The TDR was the most fun under the limit, to have the same fun on the zx you had to be going much much faster and the vtwin cagiva was fun at low speeds too as you just sat there listening to the engine.

All fun in there own way. remember a bke can have no torque (2 strokes) no power (125cc sports) and look like crap (TDR250) but they are all still fun.
Two stroke twins rule :first:

[speedpro]

Mr Slob is right. It is the curve (or more strictly, the area under the curve) that matters. A high peak torque figure may be meaningless, in extreme circumstances unusable

Imagine an extreme case. An engine with 120 ft pd at 8000 rpm. And 5 ft pd at everything under 7500 rpm.

Really high peak torque but you'd never be able to use it, because you wouldn't be able to get the bike up to 8000 rpm in any gear, because of the low torque at lower revs. The bike wouldn't even be rideable.

Conversely, a bike with a peak of only 50 ft pd but a very flat curve (45 ft pd at 1000 rpm !) might accelerate a lot faster than one with a higher but peaky peak torque. Because it has more power available at lower revs so it gets to its peak faster.

Peak torque is ony relevant on single speed engines.

This talk of peak torque in a VERY narrow band made me think of F5Dave's bucket for some reason. Very peaky power can be used, it's just a bit hard on the clutch. Also I raced agains't a guy with a bike that made way more power than mine but in a narrow band. When he was "in-the-zone" he walked away from me but inbetween times I could pull him back.

This thread has been hijacked good and proper. :yes:

[The Stranger]

OK so what's the suposed 0-60 of a rocket

[WINJA]

This talk of peak torque in a VERY narrow band made me think of F5Dave's bucket for some reason. Very peaky power can be used, it's just a bit hard on the clutch. Also I raced agains't a guy with a bike that made way more power than mine but in a narrow band. When he was "in-the-zone" he walked away from me but inbetween times I could pull him back.

This thread has been hijacked good and proper. :yes:
AND THIS GUY KNOWS HIS BUCKETS BETTER THAN MOST

[Mooch]

FIND THE CBR1100XX ONE TO BE UNBELIEVABLE , CAUSE ME AND CRAZY STEVE DID ROLL ONS FROM 100 AND FOUND WHEN HES IN 4TH I CAN USE 6TH AND ITS CLOSE , IF HE USES 5TH AND I USE SIXTH HE HAS NO CHANCE


June "Bike" magazine compares 2005 999R with R1.
999R 79.8 lb @ 7800rpm 138.6 bhp
R1 72.1 lb @ 9900rpm , 151.8 bhp.

The mazagine plots the torque of both , the 999 has it over the R1 up to it's red line. At 7000 rpm the Duke is making 20 % more torque and 20bhp more power , this slowly flatens of to the Dukes redline at with point the R1 bhp comes through in BHP only.

Interesting enough , Matt's stock MV 750 and my Ducati 748R were ploted on the same dyno , Matts old bike made more power and torque right through the rev range. I don't remember the torque figures , but I think in RW BHP it was 114 to 104. I'm running RS race cams , race exhaust with drops the torque in the lower rev range. Ended up with 110 bhp once a more suited chip was installed,The Vtwin was still short in both BHP and Torque compared to Matt's inline 4.

[onearmedbandit]

Can you buy this 'torque' in a can or bottle, how much of it should I put in my engine?

[GSVR]

More cylinders equals more power. A 750 inline 4 compares favourably with a 1000cc twin.

Remember the superbike rules around ten years or so ago. The only reason Ducati's had so much success was because the rules were biased in theirfavour. But it must have been great for Honda's development as their 750's were keeping up. But honda was running a V4 at the time.

Looking at current MotoGP engines there isn't any difference between a V4 or an inline four except maybe in weight distribution.

For an extreme compare a single cylinder with a multi of the same style and displacement.

Anyone built a Diesel bike? They would have good torque but no power.

Heres an interesting link I stumbled upon a while back .

http://www.maclean-nj.com/2002motogpengines.htm

[Lou Girardin]

The Bandit did 76 ft lbs at 8000 rpm on AMPS Dynojet dyno.
And remember that all dynos vary. So do roll ons, if you're 120 kilos you'll struggle against some Japanese racing snake on the same bike.
BTW, how about posting actual dyno figures you've SEEN, not rehashing magazine figures.

[James Deuce]

All fun in there own way. remember a bke can have no torque (2 strokes) no power (125cc sports) and look like crap (TDR250) but they are all still fun.

I'll say it again. I don't want it brought up again.

1. Two Strokes produce waaay more torque than four strokes of the same capacity and number of cylinders. It is the torque curve shape that is different.

2. Torque is a measurement of a twisting moment. When you wake up in the morning with an erection, push down on it and lift your feet off the floor. The force generated to lift your feet off the floor is torque.

Horsepower is a function of revs, torque is generated by rotating mass. Engines are at their most efficient at peak torque.

[Hitcher]

85 lb/ft of torque at 6000 rpm, in the old money...

Do I win anything?

[WINJA]

I'll say it again. I don't want it brought up again.

1. Two Strokes produce waaay more torque than four strokes of the same capacity and number of cylinders. It is the torque curve shape that is different.

2. Torque is a measurement of a twisting moment. When you wake up in the morning with an erection, push down on it and lift your feet off the floor. The force generated to lift your feet off the floor is torque.

Horsepower is a function of revs, torque is generated by rotating mass. Engines are at their most efficient at peak torque.
AND ACCORDING TO TOYOTA THEIR 2.4 PETROL HIACE HAS FAR MORE TORQUE AND HORSEPOWER EVERYWHERE COMPARED TO THEIR OWN 3.0 DIESEL

[SixPackBack]

Some of the young fella's on this site have more "pull' than a freight train...........owner operator's we know who you are :devil2:
There ability to generate prodigous qauntities of torque, would see off even a rocket lll......as long as the race was staged over several inches :rofl:

[unhingedlizard]

[QUOTE=Jim2]I'll say it again. I don't want it brought up again.

1. Two Strokes produce waaay more torque than four strokes of the same capacity and number of cylinders. It is the torque curve shape that is different.

[QUOTE]

Not true, the bike i learned to ride on (XR125) had more torque than my Aprilia RS125.

Had this Talk with a guy called Stan Stephens in britain. He says that a four stroke will ALWAYS make more torque than an equivelant two stroke, but if a four stoke was tuned to make the same power as a two, you wouldnt be able to get it off the line.

[White trash]

Not true, the bike i learned to ride on (XR125) had more torque than my Aprilia RS125.

Had this Talk with a guy called Stan Stephens in britain. He says that a four stroke will ALWAYS make more torque than an equivelant two stroke, but if a four stoke was tuned to make the same power as a two, you wouldnt be able to get it off the line.

That right? You ever ridden a 500cc 2 stroke crosser?

A 2 stroke engine fires every revolution of the crankshaft, a 4 stroke every second revolution. If a four stroke makes more torque, how come the largest, torquiest diesel engines on the plannet, those in ships, are 2 strokes?

Anyway, who gives a fuck.

Who the hell has the most torques in their bike here? Is it an inline four or a smelly v-twin?

[2_SL0]

WT quote " smelly v-twin?"

What do they smell of?

[GSVR]

yeah sorry for fucking your thread up Trashman.

As for my 1999 SV650 just refer to Riff Raffs posting and subtract around 5 hp. Though I reacon the total power output went up when I put on the Yosi exhaust due to the fact it has alot less restriction than the standard.

[Riff Raff]

Is it an inline four or a smelly v-twin?
Ah well if that's your opinion you don't have to ride my bike again!

Sorry, what did I hear you say before? Something along the lines of you actually really enjoy riding my bike, but don't let anyone else know?

[James Deuce]

[QUOTE=Jim2]I'll say it again. I don't want it brought up again.

1. Two Strokes produce waaay more torque than four strokes of the same capacity and number of cylinders. It is the torque curve shape that is different.

[QUOTE]

Not true, the bike i learned to ride on (XR125) had more torque than my Aprilia RS125.

Had this Talk with a guy called Stan Stephens in britain. He says that a four stroke will ALWAYS make more torque than an equivelant two stroke, but if a four stoke was tuned to make the same power as a two, you wouldnt be able to get it off the line.

You get off on talking shit, don't you.

T W O S T R O K E S M A K E M O R E T O R Q U E T H A N F O U R S T R O K E S.

My 465cc Stage II Stan Stephens kitted RG400 made twice the torque of a Honda CB550F of the same vintage. Twice. You on the other hand are discussing low RPM response, NOT torque. A two stroke of the same capacity and cylinder layout as a four stroke will always make more torque than four stroke. The pistons and crank are accelerated by combustion twice as often as a four stroke. The torque curve is utterly different than a four stroke though. Peak torque and HP tend to almost coincide on a well tuned two stroke giving that power band feel.

Read John Robinson's books. He explains it really well.

[Two Smoker]

WT quote " smelly v-twin?"

What do they smell of?

The v-twin im riding smells of oil... oil that is burning...

Personally i like the sound of a v-twin, but only at idle.... and who the fuck wants to ride a bike at idle all the time??? I LOVE THE SOUND of a crisp inline 4 600/750/1000 with a nice pipe on it.... mmmmm that bark....

[DEATH_INC.]

Just outta interest my turbo makes 111ftlbs (rw)at a pissy 15psi boost(the only dyno figures i got)but will run to 30psi....

Usually the reason why an engine is put in a v-series is to increase the bore size for a given stroke which increases the torque given at the expense of the speed of rotation of the crank (because a bigger piston is heavier etc). Hence v-series engines tend to have more torque at lower rpm.

Not true.A larger bore/shorter stroke makes more rpm,not more torque.It is all to do with piston velocities etc.

[unhingedlizard]

[QUOTE=unhingedlizard][QUOTE=Jim2]I'll say it again. I don't want it brought up again.

1. Two Strokes produce waaay more torque than four strokes of the same capacity and number of cylinders. It is the torque curve shape that is different.



You get off on talking shit, don't you.

T W O S T R O K E S M A K E M O R E T O R Q U E T H A N F O U R S T R O K E S.

My 465cc Stage II Stan Stephens kitted RG400 made twice the torque of a Honda CB550F of the same vintage. Twice. You on the other hand are discussing low RPM response, NOT torque. A two stroke of the same capacity and cylinder layout as a four stroke will always make more torque than four stroke. The pistons and crank are accelerated by combustion twice as often as a four stroke. The torque curve is utterly different than a four stroke though. Peak torque and HP tend to almost coincide on a well tuned two stroke giving that power band feel.

Read John Robinson's books. He explains it really well.

Your highly tuned two stroke made more torque, well fancy that.
Lets leave it at you and i have different understandings of this ok? Getting personnal on an internet Chatforum isnt really my cup of tea.

Love how you can make ussumptions about me on the bases of two replies in an internet thread though.

[speedpro]

Just outta interest my turbo makes 111ftlbs (rw)at a pissy 15psi boost(the only dyno figures i got)but will run to 30psi....

Not true.A larger bore/shorter stroke makes more rpm,not more torque.It is all to do with piston velocities etc.

Gotta be careful here, that bigger bore results in a larger surface area of the piston crown which with the same combustion pressure will result in a greater force pushing the piston down the bore. (pressure per sq" X area). Depending on rod length etc it could actually end up with more torque. The shorter stroke allows more rpm, if the bigger bore results in the same torque the end result will be more power. Lots of variables though, and absolutley nothing to do with the reason this thread was started.

[Mooch]

The v-twin im riding smells of oil... oil that is burning...

Personally i like the sound of a v-twin, but only at idle.... and who the fuck wants to ride a bike at idle all the time??? I LOVE THE SOUND of a crisp inline 4 600/750/1000 with a nice pipe on it.... mmmmm that bark....

Yep , love the sound of those inlines ..... They remind me of those 70's Kung Fu movie voiceovers ....
kimosarbie ..... your going to die ......whooooooaaaw
Grasshoper .... take that ...... wheeeeeeeoooowwa

:rofl: :rofl:

Give me the sound of a twin any day

[Brian d marge]

I was/wont wasnt going to ,,,,bugger it I am typing now ..going to reply to this thread ,,,

The figures posted originally are face value figures only ..as in .... oh thats nice isnt it ,,,

there has been a few thing posted since ,,so would like to clear up a few things

first Torque ,,, is an angular Moment ,,, ie ,,,,a moment is getting lucky with miss Firmthighs ,,,an angular moment is the same thing but in a Ford Anglebox ...
( or for engineers a moment is a force x a distance )

Force ... a pressure is a force divided over an area .N/mm^2 or Psi so a force is a pressure x an area ...

Power is the Rate at which Energy is used as in KW is 1k joues/sec as is the Energy used to run up some stairs is the same ,,but if you do it in 10 sec ,,,you have a higher power rate ...or over one week ,,same energy just used a lot slower ....

Joues is that funny fella down the black lion on Saturday ...

So for instantanous power before losses P = 2 x PI x N/60 xT ( where N is revs per sec...

Fly wheels have nought to do with accel of the bike , their Job is to store energy , which does a lot of other very important things such as give up it energy in order to get the piston over is dislike of compression ...as well as give up energy when rider is a wooos like me and wont open the thottle..so needs that nice soft .......( ie smoothed out due to less dramatic changes in the rotational speed of the flywheel) .........power delivery down low ...

One of the reasons for more cylinders is valve curtain area ,,,a single with 4 valve has Less valve curtain area ( the area around the outside of the open valve ) than a 6 cylinder with tiny weeny valves ....and you can accel small valves quicker ,,,which makes the N in 2 pi n t ,,,bigger........also smaller cylinders do a whole lot of other very important stuff a lot quicker to ..

A twin is also lighter , less frontal area ,,, etc etc thats why it was a V 5....

So once all the above has happened you pass all that energy along a chain to a whooping great lever ,,that just so happens to be round ,,,the longer the lever the less trouble the engine has in levering that great lump along the road ...a torque multiplyer as has been said already ..

Two stroke and 4 stroke

Two stroke are VERY good heat pumps ,,a 125 will intake about 185cc of mixture AND does this once every revolution ...BUT it can only keep the stuff in the cylinder when the pressure wave finally decides to turn up

...and they get on better than me an me missus ,,,.......at least they meet at a certain Rpm .......either side of that rpm you get leakage ,,,,,,and leakages arnt good ,,,anytime ...You can taper the pipe a bit to slow or speed up the pressure wave making it arrive over a wider Rpm range ( actually the temp of the gasses has more to do with its speed ,,,you can do alot in this reagion ,,rather than swap to expensive aftermarket pipes ..)

So it depends where you want your power ,,,,, me I love 2 smokes ...you can do so much with them,,,,,, like a violin ,,

the four stroke while filling the cylinder less ,,,it doesnt lose so much ,,,but it only does its business every 720 deg ....which is a lot easier for the tyre,,,and all concerned with power delivery ,,,,,So would feel more torquier over a wider range ( as the 2 smoke is suffering leakages !!)

But if a 2 stroke was set up to operate at the same rpm as a four stroke ..say 6000 or even 1000 rpm ,,,then the 2 smoke would be torqueier,,,, but once the losses got to much then the 4 stroke would still be doing its business...( that peak torque argument is valid here as it the shape under the torque curve ,,,,,,)

Oh you could bung a lot of gears into a 2 smoke motor in order to keep it in that torque curve ,,,,, then u call it ...Ito ...with 16 gears ??? was it????

Anyway Ive rambled to long and if the above bo%%&'X makes sence ,,then you are more pissed than I am ....( note to self Start drinking AFTER thinking ,,or is that before drinking ,,,one or the other !)

Stephen

[Waylander]

The next bike I plan on getting will have 103.8 foot pounds of torque at 3,500 RPM at the rear wheel. But I guess that doesn't count as I don't have it yet. We'll see in time though...

[TonyB]

man has this tread ever gone off track. At least Waylander understands what WT is trying to do. But I suspect Waylander is refering to a Warrior, which makes all that loverly torque by having lots of cubes.

[WRT]

Just to add more fuel to the debate . . . a good site for bike stats. Dunno how accurate they are, but it does give you a nice wealth of info at your finger tips . . .

http://www.motorbikes.be/en/

[scumdog]

Hmmm, torque?

Does my bike get me from A to B ok? Yes
Do I have to change down to pass cars? No
Do I have to change down to get up hills? No

Then I have enought torque IMHO.

Any more would just be 'extra-icing' on the cake.


530ft/lb torque with the F100 though.

[Waylander]

man has this tread ever gone off track. At least Waylander understands what WT is trying to do. But I suspect Waylander is refering to a Warrior, which makes all that loverly torque by having lots of cubes.
Licky guess:clap: Beutifull bike though isn't it.

[vifferman]

Interesting thread, despite the personal attacks, drunken ramblings, etc. If nothing else, it got me doing some investigation. The VTR1000 and VFR800 have the same (quoted) power of 81kW (yeah, right!) but the VTR (996 cc) produces 97 mutant-eaters at 7k rpm, whereas the VFR (781 cc) produces 82 torque thingies at 8.5K rpm.

So?
Dunno.
They both have around the same top speed and performance figures, but feel completely different in the way though go about it, with the v-twin having a much flatter torque curve, higher gearing, and a more relaxed feel about it. An '05 CBR600RR has a similar power output as well, but less of them torque thingies, and revs higher. It also feels much more busy and less powerful until the revs get up into 5 digits.

So?
Dunno.... :whocares:

[TonyB]

Licky guess:clap: Beutifull bike though isn't it.
'Lucky guess' my left testicle! I knew what it was- you've been babbling about buying one! Had to be it then eh

[Waylander]

'Lucky guess' my left testicle! I knew what it was- you've been babbling about buying one! Had to be it then eh
I babble about buying alot of bikes though. Used to be a Rocket III then it was a 636, now it's the Road Warrior. Very serious about few though and this is one of the serious ones. Something that can go quik looks and sounds good AND is not a bike that the majority have. In fact I havn't seen one on the road here yet.

And ya know the more I think about it that fat pipe is starting to grow on me. Doesn't seem as ugly to me anymore.:love:

[TonyB]

I babble about buying alot of bikes though. Used to be a Rocket III then it was a 636, now it's the Road Warrior. Very serious about few though and this is one of the serious ones. Something that can go quik looks and sounds good AND is not a bike that the majority have. In fact I havn't seen one on the road here yet.

And ya know the more I think about it that fat pipe is starting to grow on me. Doesn't seem as ugly to me anymore.:love:
Well I knew it wasn't a Rocket III because they make a whole lot more torque than that. Couldn't see it being the Kwaka 2 litre or a VTX for some reason. So thought it had to be the Warrior. Elementry, my dear Waylander.

[Hitcher]

Who the hell has the most torques in their bike here? Is it an inline four or a smelly v-twin?
Or perhaps a V-4...

[Big Dave]

But Garry, you don't got a RIII. Also, it aint an inline four or a V-Twin. And I'm talkin' road bikes, not some Koala rooting race thingy.....

Edit: And Triumph will tell ya it beats a Busa, let's see it on the strip. A pommy bike mag's already proven it doesn't.

You're welcome.

Beats it to 4th gear when power-to-weight and aerodynamics take over.
Have video.

Anyway how do you know - you don't read magazines any more.

[White trash]

Anyway how do you know - you don't read magazines any more.

What I meant to say was, I only read pommy magazines with lotsa wheelies, and no dirt bike stuff (not that I got anything against dirt bikes), or magazine articles I have personally botched my way through in an atempt to look a lot cleverer than I actually am.

[DEATH_INC.]

Gotta be careful here, that bigger bore results in a larger surface area of the piston crown which with the same combustion pressure will result in a greater force pushing the piston down the bore. (pressure per sq" X area). Depending on rod length etc it could actually end up with more torque. The shorter stroke allows more rpm, if the bigger bore results in the same torque the end result will be more power. Lots of variables though, and absolutley nothing to do with the reason this thread was started.
But the longer stroke has a larger crank throw,more leverage to turn the crank=more torque.(if you keep the same capacity of course...)
Outta interest,what's that beast of yours make?

[Big Dave]

Trophy 1200

[WINJA]

Trophy 1200
THOSE ARE GOOD NUMBERS FOR A 750

[Sensei]

Don't know what to say ?? Don't ZX 636R put out more HP than that & torque ? What happend to the old 1200 Daytona 147HP & as much torque as a truck Dave ? I know its a Touring bike but please thats a poor Dnyo for a big bike Dude !

[scumdog]

THOSE ARE GOOD NUMBERS FOR A 750

Would probably good for my 1200 too.... :whistle:

[Big Dave]

THOSE ARE GOOD NUMBERS FOR A 750


It's like accountancy: It's not the numbers - it's what you can do with them.

[Big Dave]

Don't know what to say ?? Don't ZX 636R put out more HP than that & torque ? What happend to the old 1200 Daytona 147HP & as much torque as a truck Dave ? I know its a Touring bike but please thats a poor Dnyo for a big bike Dude !


That's stock - t'was before the daytona pistons and cams and neptune cans.

Edit - actually - it might have had the cans - but no engine work. It's almost 5 years ago I don't really remember. And they were OK numbers back then too.

[raster]

GSX400X Impulse 1986
59 hp / 12.000 rpm, 3,8 kg-m/ 10.500 rpm

How does that compare to modern 400cc bikes.

For a 20 year old bike.

[Sensei]

[QUOTE=Big Dave]That's stock - t'was before the daytona pistons and cams and neptune cans.

So should be about 130 Hp now ?? See a nice 97 1200 Daytona on Trademe @ the moment . Very tempting wifey may say something tho :whistle:

[Uncle B]

I LOVE MY TWIN....it's got all the stompy torquie stuff I need low down.

Unlike the fours which start making real power at a zillion rpm and feels like your sitting on a hand genade with the pin pulled.

Saying that I have ridden WT's GSXR which has far more bang for your buck than my smelly twin, but I'll stick with wot I've got cause I know that a good sounding twin will turn more heads than 4.

I LOVE MY TWIN

[Big Dave]

[QUOTE=Big Dave]That's stock - t'was before the daytona pistons and cams and neptune cans.

So should be about 130 Hp now ?? See a nice 97 1200 Daytona on Trademe @ the moment . Very tempting wifey may say something tho :whistle:

Yeah - I think it is - it's been dyno'd once since, but I can't find the graph.

And like I said to winja - for road use - it ain't the numbers - it's how well they are set up.

Battlestar has.
Ohlins, Race tech Cartridge emulators, ohlins springs, and is jacked up with some custom ride height adjusters. Static sag is set and it's running sports/touring compounds that are well suited to it's weight and the fact that a carries a passenger 90% of the time. Plus I'm big and ugly enough to chuck it round like a sports bike.

I'm toungin' to get it back on the road - reflections have done a great job on the paint - so maybe later this week Battlestar Mark III will be re-launched.

[speedpro]

I LOVE MY TWIN....blah blah blah etc etc

I LOVE MY TWIN

I like twins too, but the best I've ever managed was sisters. Not much torque but oh so much fun to ride.

[Uncle B]

I like twins too....blah blah blah....but oh so much fun to ride.

Damm right

[Lou Girardin]

That's stock - t'was before the daytona pistons and cams and neptune cans.

Edit - actually - it might have had the cans - but no engine work. It's almost 5 years ago I don't really remember. And they were OK numbers back then too.

I hope the mixture's fixed between 3 and 4 thou.

[Hitcher]

It's like accountancy: It's not the numbers - it's what you can do with them.
More like lies, damned lies and statistics...

[Ixion]

I like twins too, but the best I've ever managed was sisters. Not much torque but oh so much fun to ride.

You managed to shut them up? My experience, when you get sisters, they talk non stop. Except when actually being ridden. :devil2:

[The Stranger]

The torque curve on the carbed birds heads south from about 4250rpm and doesnt start to recover until 5500rpm. at 6200rpm it is back to the same level as it was at 4250.
The Fuel Injected jobs don't have the same problem and have higher output. You really do need to differentiate the 2 as at 4000rpm they would be doing about 120kph and just dropping into a hole in top gear.