View Full Version : Would you give up your Thou' for an 800cc MotoGP rep?
imdying
19th June 2007, 13:02
Instead of hijacking someones thread I have decide to start a new thread on this subject. If it doesn't interest you you don't have to post.
What I'm interested in is if the manufacturers brought out a crop of 800cc MotoGP replicas would you give up your equally developed 1000cc bike? Part of the appeal to me of the thou is the torque curve, and the way I see it if they brought out an 800cc bike with the same peak power it would not have the spread of torque the 1000cc bike would have. Or am I wrong?
Thoughts please.
(btw, I'm bringing imdyings and my posts across from the other thread.)
I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the Honda thou dropped for an 800 with the same (peak) power, and a 155kg chassis. It'll somewhat instantly make the thous antiques, plus they'll get the bonus of screwing Suzuki over (are they going to keep the GSXR750 name alive once the world heads 800?) and keeping the greenies happy to boot (they don't know any better, they'll just see a 20% decrease in capacity).
onearmedbandit
19th June 2007, 13:16
Suzuki already have the head start on them with the GSXR750. Adding another 45-50cc would be a piece of piss for them, they could do it over night. And part of the appeal of the thou's is the torque curve, which the 800cc machine won't have. Peak power matters very little in the real world.
imdying
19th June 2007, 13:28
Suzuki already have the head start on them with the GSXR750. Adding another 45-50cc would be a piece of piss for them, they could do it over night. And part of the appeal of the thou's is the torque curve, which the 800cc machine won't have. Peak power matters very little in the real world.Technologically, piece of cake... killing off the GSXR750, I'm picking that would be a lot harder for Suzuki. The GSXR750 has pretty good torque itself... I' doubt they'd have to rape the torque curve much to get the 800 up to crazy power... like you say it's just a big bore 750.
onearmedbandit
19th June 2007, 13:32
You miss my point though. The torque that the current crop of thou's develop is part of the appeal, an appeal that the 800's couldn't match especially if they are developed to produce the power that the thou's do. You've ridden my bike, the torque spread is incredible.
imdying
19th June 2007, 13:40
Given the current rate of development, they wouldn't have a torque deficiency for very long. I doubt that you'd actually feel the deficiency at all if they built them at around 155kgs (i.e. current CBR600 weight) anyway.
onearmedbandit
19th June 2007, 13:45
I'm not doubting that there is a market for the 800's, but I don't believe that it would render the 1000c completely obsolete.
However, with part of the reason the thou's sell so well is that people want the 'top-dog', I could see that affecting the thou's market. And as soon as development slows on the thou's it would be the death knock for them. Gone the way of the 1100's of old. Market forces at work.
Still, I have some difficulty with the notion of giving up the torque and power of my thou for something that needs to strung out a lot harder to acheive what I have on tap now.
imdying
19th June 2007, 13:47
Torque is only good for pulling... ditch all the thou associated lard and you'll not miss it. Twin mufflers on the GSXR1000K7 anyone :rofl:
But yes, they'll go the way of the 1100 when it happens.
onearmedbandit
19th June 2007, 13:53
Instead of hijacking someones thread I have decide to start a new thread on this subject. If it doesn't interest you you don't have to post.
What I'm interested in is if the manufacturers brought out a crop of 800cc MotoGP replicas would you give up your equally developed 1000cc bike? Part of the appeal to me of the thou is the torque curve, and the way I see it if they brought out an 800cc bike with the same peak power it would not have the spread of torque the 1000cc bike would have. Or am I wrong?
Thoughts please.
(btw, I'm bringing imdyings and my posts across from the other thread.)
imdying
19th June 2007, 13:55
Those evil moderators twisting words... 'equally developed'... he knows very well that they'll soften the thous up :lol:
onearmedbandit
19th June 2007, 14:01
I'm assuming for this debate that they won't. No sense in comparing a bike that could turn into a GSXF or CBRXX to a race breed GSXR or CBR.
Torque is only good for pulling... ditch all the thou associated lard and you'll not miss it.
And the difference in weight between the latest thou's and 600's is? 5/8 of feck all. And bear in mind that the new open class bikes have got these heavy exhaust because of emission controls due to the power they develop. You don't think an 800 producing the same power won't require the same?
imdying
19th June 2007, 14:03
What's the GSXR100K7 up to now? 170+kg? CBR600 07, 155kg?
onearmedbandit
19th June 2007, 14:05
Drop that exhaust and you lose 8+kg, just as you would have to do on the 800. And is that weight figure for the 600 genuine or something you pulled out of the air?
imdying
19th June 2007, 14:07
That's the Honda quoted figure, as is the Suzuki one... I figure they lie pretty much equally. Yes, much of the weight is in the exhaust... which you won't need as much of on an 800, as the 750 and 600 have already shown... they too pass the emission standards.
The Pastor
19th June 2007, 14:20
I think it will be awesome, I havnt ridden a modern thou, so I won't see the differance when they stop making the 1000's :D
sugilite
19th June 2007, 14:41
World Superbike has increased the capacity for twins, I cannot see the market following motogp capacity trends. I'm quite sure the Jap manufacturers will stick with 1000 multis for a while yet...cheaper to produce power too me thinks :yes:
slinky
19th June 2007, 14:44
id go for an 800.
xwhatsit
19th June 2007, 14:48
I'm not going to vote, as I'm a lowly little 250 boy, but the amount of people you hear going on about how the 1000cc RRRR bikes are pretty much unsuitable for the roads (at least in this country), you'd think perhaps a drop in capacity wouldn't hurt.
As far as I understand it, the GSXR750 is pretty much a hangover from the old days of when the 750s were the cutting edge; the 600 and the 1000 are the kings these days. Yet you see a hell of a lot of the GSXR750s on the roads. Is there perhaps a good balance there? Some of the agility and light weight of the 600s, yet with enough torque to make up the deficit felt with the peaky 600s?
Perhaps there's room for an even sharper 750; MotoGP-inspired 800cc RRRRs.
Like I said, I'm completely unqualified to comment, but if you're a torque-monster, then perhaps a big GSX1400/CB1300 is more suitable? Or do the 1000cc RRRRs fill that niche so perfectly?
I don't know if I'd ever want to own a 1000cc RRRR, as I like lightweight nimble things. Riding a GSXR600 around the block was enjoyable, it felt ponderous but was flickable enough. I doubt a 1000cc would have enough of that for me to buy it. However, a GSXR/CBR800RR might just be throwable and nimble enough, while appealing to that need to own the `top dog', that it would be able to grab my imaginary money.
skelstar
19th June 2007, 14:59
Woo...good thread guys.
At the end of the day its going to come down to what they look like for a lot of folk. If they have the cool little lippy hugger and short seat that the Honda MotoGP bikes have then I'd be in!
Would be cool if the designers could be a little less conservative on some of the styling in one of the classes of bikes. 800cc seems to fit the bill AFAIC.
Big Dave
19th June 2007, 15:03
but the amount of people you hear going on about how the 1000cc RRRR
Probably guilty.
Unsuitable is not the right word.
I don't enjoy them much, simply because 'I can resist anything but temptation' Wilde, O.
If I get on a fireblade - I nail it. Somewhere out the back of nowhere usually, but what experienced biker can resist - i asks ya?
If you do track days and stuff - then get a replica or whatever. All good.
If like the vast majority, you ride on the public byways all the time then why have 300kph? You don't even need 200.
Sooner of later the split second longer you leave it in first or second is likely to cost you six months suspension and then to keep a licence all you do is idle about - 3,000rpm short of the power band.
Nah, give me a mid power something that you have to ride and can nail it occasionally.
I just gave back a Triumph Thruxton. 70hp. Hold it flat out in first ,second and a bit of third and it still won't draw any heat, and is much less likely to kill you.
That's me.
I'd love a replica in the shed for track days and giving McKay the larn. Ask me to test the bikes and I can do it dispassionately and scientific like and that and all and am in awe of the teknologikal stuff.
But not for my daily ride.
BIGBOSSMAN
19th June 2007, 15:27
Aren't the majority of Motogp bikes built around a different cylinder firing order? Intrinsically 2 pairs of parallel twins bolted together. This, so I'm led to believe, increases the available of torque from the smaller displacement engine - it may be a similar torque spread compared with a thou'. I'd love a ZZ-RR, RCV-212V or M1 with lights and indicators! Don't know about the Duke or Suzi, and certainly not the Kenny Roberts abomination. :rockon:
inlinefour
19th June 2007, 17:49
I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the Honda thou dropped for an 800 with the same (peak) power, and a 155kg chassis. It'll somewhat instantly make the thous antiques, plus they'll get the bonus of screwing Suzuki over (are they going to keep the GSXR750 name alive once the world heads 800?) and keeping the greenies happy to boot (they don't know any better, they'll just see a 20% decrease in capacity).
how many 1000cc owner can actually can ride them to the limit? Or to the point how many would be able to ride a 800cc balls out? I loved the CBR600RR as it was plenty fast enough and it was not that often that I got to ring its nuts out. However just before my accident I put on some Metzeller M1s on the bike, what a farking difference! I suspect that if Id been riding the CBR for much longer with the way it was set up my ability to ring it out and potentially loose my licience would have increased. Never mind nice still having the licience and knowing I used to be able to do it...:rockon:
imdying
19th June 2007, 17:56
And yet, they still sell in great numbers. I agree on the 600 point, being able to screw it made it more fun to ride for me... I think I'd have misssed that on a thou. A nice buzzy motor gives more of the gp hero experience, if you see what I mean?
In the end, it might not even be in the hands of the manufacturers as to what we get... legislation might kill the hyper bikes before any market forces or whatever come into play.
Deviant Esq
19th June 2007, 18:12
Suzuki already have the head start on them with the GSXR750. Adding another 45-50cc would be a piece of piss for them, they could do it over night. And part of the appeal of the thou's is the torque curve, which the 800cc machine won't have.
It depends on the engine IMO. Most of the Moto GP teams use inline four cylinder engines, but Honda uses a V4, which they already have in the VFR800. I'd say they could quite easily change the tune of that engine to suit a race replica, and pop it in a possible VFR800RR.
As far as I understand it, the GSXR750 is pretty much a hangover from the old days of when the 750s were the cutting edge; the 600 and the 1000 are the kings these days. Yet you see a hell of a lot of the GSXR750s on the roads. Is there perhaps a good balance there?
There is. In the past the GSXR750 never really sold in the same sort of numbers as the 600 or the 1000, but Suzuki have been rewarded for sticking with it - in the UK at least (a good base market to work off), the GSXR750 outsells the 600 and the 1000 combined. From what I understand it sells so many mainly because it's as flickable as the 600, it handles like it's on rails... but more power. It hasn't got too much more hp than the 600 but it has a sizeable increase in torque which makes all the difference. For those that don't want to have to wring the neck of a 600 but don't want the kind of power the 1000 puts out, the 750 is a near perfect compromise... which is why it sells so well.
SPman
19th June 2007, 18:16
Apparently next years Fireblade is a 1000 V4 with R6 style exhaust - looks good in the photos.
Personally - I'd go for an 800 - although the 1000's have a torque advantage
imdying
19th June 2007, 18:19
I'd say they could quite easily change the tune of that engine to suit a race replica, and pop it in a possible VFR800RRAhhhh, yes please!
From what I understand it sells so many mainly because it's as flickable as the 600, it handles like it's on rails.Probably their history helps too... everyone has had one at some stage. I'm sure Honda would like to finish that line off :yes:
Mental Trousers
19th June 2007, 18:19
I'd be very, very tempted if there was an R8 on the market. Who wouldn't want the 600 with a 30% increase in displacement?? It'd weigh a wee bit more but not like the thou's. And more importantly the rotational mass is a lot lower than the thousands.
I hope the big bike companies do start putting out road going 800's. It could only be a good thing.
imdying
19th June 2007, 18:22
World Superbike has increased the capacity for twins, I cannot see the market following motogp capacity trends. I'm quite sure the Jap manufacturers will stick with 1000 multis for a while yet...cheaper to produce power too me thinks :yes:I agree on both points, I believe they'll stick to the thous at least for now, and a bigger motor must be easier to get more power out of (slower moving pistons requiring less techy metal if nothing else). Do you think perhaps this poll shows that the market would indeed love to have a motogp sized and styled bike though?
Kendog
19th June 2007, 18:27
Yet you see a hell of a lot of the GSXR750s on the roads. Is there perhaps a good balance there? Some of the agility and light weight of the 600s, yet with enough torque to make up the deficit felt with the peaky 600s?
Exactly right, plus what Deviant said.
It really is a great bike to ride :yes:
JayRacer37
19th June 2007, 18:33
Yea, though a GP rep would be awesome, I don't recon they would/will do it. firstly, they can't do a true rep using the GP stuff, cause that breaks ALL the prototype only laws for MotoGP.
Secondly, as soon as you put lights, road panels, etc etc, steel brakes for road use, road tyres, softer suspension to deal with the bumps...on the bikes, all you have is a bored out GSX-R750, or scaled down thou. they are alreay building the 600's and thous to as race rep as they can, for the production racing classes, they can't get any more racey on the road, till there is new technology, as witnessed by twin piped GSXR1000's.
What wold be REAL trick would be a track-day/race ready bike sold, that doesnt have to comply to emmision laws, or have the ability to ride slowly on the road, and in variying conditions...a bike that would be delivered on slicks or race tyres, with a race set up, and cast iorn at least brakes, lightweight rims that dont need to be strenthed for going up and down curbs...
A bike a little like the SP-2 basic racer from HRC a few years ago, except more racey...like Kenny Roberts Fireblade engined GP chassis bike!! :yes:
N4CR
19th June 2007, 18:34
hmmm..... tough question. i do love the easyness of a thou to ride... farken torque for africa. getting onto the 07 zx6 made me go wtf it's a 250 then power hits and it's time to change gear... thou, power hits and it keeps going. gears are not as important.
in saying that i have had so much fun on 250's and 600's on the road cus you can thrash them in alot of places (600's to a lesser extent..). thrashing thous takes a rather empty and special road, special conditions, times and to be honest i've only done it for prolonged periods probably twice and come back with the edges ripped off and a nice tyre bill in the coming month. in saying that it's probably the best experience i've ever had on a bike..
an 800 would in the same situation probably be as quick or quicker if raped in power constantly and corners chucked in for a good mix, but anywhere else in engine range the thou should just leap ahead with the tq advantage. so maybe the 800 would be less fun than a thou without the torque? an as peaky 600 with same power as a thou probably so similar long thou gears so you can't use the rev range without loosing bits of paper that say you can be on the road.... then there is not as much power down low to have fun with so you're thrashing it to get anywhere and any power...... that's if you want to ride vigoroursurously. thou you can ride at decent speeds with lazy gears and lower revs...
gah... i ramble and talk ****. next post....
enigma51
19th June 2007, 18:35
Exactly right, plus what Deviant said.
It really is a great bike to ride :yes:
Agree with you there and even though the 1000c have more speed they dont dont tend to get away much once they are standing up mid corner i would say the 750 is easier and slightly faster
JayRacer37
19th June 2007, 18:53
It depends on the engine IMO. Most of the Moto GP teams use inline four cylinder engines, but Honda uses a V4, which they already have in the VFR800. .
Hold up dude..most of?? Only Yamaha are using inline four, everyone else is V4 now.
BIGBOSSMAN
19th June 2007, 21:01
Wouldn't mind a 500cc race-replica instead. Like this one
Deviant Esq
19th June 2007, 21:47
Hold up dude..most of?? Only Yamaha are using inline four, everyone else is V4 now.
Not so - check the Moto GP website. Kawasaki and Suzuki are also using an inline four, according to their team websites.
As far as the poll goes, I voted "undecided", because I've not ridden a bike over 500cc anyway and I'm therefore not qualified to comment!
sugilite
19th June 2007, 22:21
I agree on both points, I believe they'll stick to the thous at least for now, and a bigger motor must be easier to get more power out of (slower moving pistons requiring less techy metal if nothing else). Do you think perhaps this poll shows that the market would indeed love to have a motogp sized and styled bike though?
Yeah, for sure there is a market for bikes that look more moto gpish, but do clothes makith the man? :lol:
There is if course that limited run of V4 gp reps Ducati did :yes:
JayRacer37
19th June 2007, 22:23
Not so - check the Moto GP website. Kawasaki and Suzuki are also using an inline four, according to their team websites.
As far as the poll goes, I voted "undecided", because I've not ridden a bike over 500cc anyway and I'm therefore not qualified to comment!
My bad, your right - Kawasaki are an inline 4 too. But Suzuki are definitly V4 - have been since XREO1-2 back in 2001-2002.
I think the only people that have changed their engine layouts since 2002 (other than diffrences in Vee angle) are Honda, dropping a cylnder to a V4 this year. Layouts over MotoGP era so far are:
Ducati:V4 (90 degree Vee i think, follows their design criteria) (2003 - )
Honda:V5 (2002 - 2006), V4 (2007 - )
Yamaha: Inline 4 (Changed to 'big bang' and 'long bang' firing order in....2003?)
Kawasaki:Inline 4 (Similar experiments with firing order to Yamaha, but approx. 1.5 years behind)
Suzuki: V4 (75 degree Vee angle in 2002...belive this was changed, not sure when)
Aprillia: Inline Triple (2002-2003 only)
WCM : Inline 4 (2003-200....5?)
KR: V5 (2003-2004(?)), V4 (KTM motor) (2005), V5 (Honda motor) 2006, V4 (Honda) 2007 -
Illmor: V4. (2006 - 2007 -???)
Don't know why I wanted to do that...suppose it filled in 20 mins. Any corrections where I fucked up peoples!! cheers :whocares:
sugilite
19th June 2007, 22:23
Not so - check the Moto GP website. Kawasaki and Suzuki are also using an inline four, according to their team websites.
I'm sure the Suzuki is V4, the Kawa and yami are inline fours for sure.
Deviant Esq
19th June 2007, 23:02
Suzuki are definitly V4 - have been since XREO1-2 back in 2001-2002.
Whoops, my bad, getting a bit ahead of myself. I remember now that I tried to find the configuration on the Rizla Suzuki website, but couldn't. I think I meant to write Kawasaki and Yamaha but got crossed up. Heart was in the right place though!
In that case Suzuki couldn't just add displacement to the GSXR750 and call it a Moto GP replica as it'd have the wrong engine configuration. The torque and horsepower curves for a V4 are different to that of an inline four too. Okay okay, I only know from being a know it all rather than actual seat of the pants o'meter experience... :bleh:
JayRacer37
19th June 2007, 23:04
. Okay okay, I only know from being a know it all rather than actual seat of the pants o'meter experience... :bleh:
Hahahaha for MotoGP bikes thats all I am too buddy :)
Chrislost
19th June 2007, 23:11
Apparently next years Fireblade is a 1000 V4 with R6 style exhaust - looks good in the photos.
Personally - I'd go for an 800 - although the 1000's have a torque advantage
1000V4?
pics?
vids?
honda webiste link to it?
penis extention?
Nutter34
20th June 2007, 05:01
There are the same arguments coming out as in all the old pissing contests. We don't NEED anything bigger than a 400 to thrash, or break the law. A 250 will probably suffice!
I now have a ZX10, why, because it's easy to ride. I've had my share of 600's and have a 400 race bike. When it comes to road riding, the thou is smooth and the torque just makes for a pleasant ride.
Yes, a lot of people enjoy more of a thrash and I used to too. For a long time, I swore never to have anything bigger than a 600, purely due to the rider involvement. Things change however and what excites from a ride change.
So, as far as the debate goes, I'd probably stick to the thou, purely for the torque available. It doesn't mean I ride faster or break the law more, just that it's a different experience riding at the same pace...
sAsLEX
20th June 2007, 05:17
Apparently next years Fireblade is a 1000 V4 with R6 style exhaust - looks good in the photos.
Personally - I'd go for an 800 - although the 1000's have a torque advantage
This post is a bit useless without the picture or link?
v4s do rock the world though http://www.ducati.com/docs_eng/photogallery_races/images/sounds/0304mgpstart/desmosedici_start.mp3
"There's the V-4 thing: there's just something about it that inline 4s don't have, and V-twins have too much of."
– Murray Duncan
As a marketing tool I think the 800 would work.
Most newish bikers, like myself, looking for their second or third bike think the step up to the mentality of a modern thou IL4 is a bit much. An 800 on the other hand?
Though this is a moot point since any decent 800 would soon make the same power?
Skunk
20th June 2007, 21:32
Yea, though a GP rep would be awesome, I don't recon they would/will do it. firstly, they can't do a true rep using the GP stuff, cause that breaks ALL the prototype only laws for MotoGP.Yep, you got it Jay, MotoGP is all about non-production bikes. WCM found that out when they used modified Yamaha parts on their first bike (so I'm told).
Any 800cc road bike will have to be totally different to the race bike in every aspect.
sAsLEX
21st June 2007, 02:38
Any 800cc road bike will have to be totally different to the race bike in every aspect.
From the current one at least, could be based on the previous years model..... well not until next year but you get my picture
imdying
21st June 2007, 10:04
Just to throw the cat amongst the pidgeons... the thing that originally started the discussion between OAB and I was a comment I made along the lines of 'I think the 4 cyl thou (top of range sportbike) class will evolve into an 800 class, with lighter bikes all round'. I didn't actually mean that they'd be motogp reps (the size would probably be the same, the marketing link just makes sense), just that there would evolve into the R8, ZX8R, GSXR800 etc.
Nutter34
21st June 2007, 13:58
Can't see that happening, seeing as the 1000's are WSB based and they've got the rights for a few more years yet. Then there's the politics between GP and WSB about bike sizes. Rumours about 250's going 600 etc. But, 600's are already a WSB domain. Who knows? I can't see them running same capacity sizes and having two different series for it... Even if one is production based and the other prototype...
imdying
21st June 2007, 14:15
I can't see them running same capacity sizes and having two different series for it...Wot? You mean like motogp was for 5 or 6 years?
pritch
21st June 2007, 15:37
I voted for the 800, but then I would, I'm biased.
There was speculation in BIKE that Honda may bring out a V4 1000 to replace the CBR. But then there were prolific rumours that Honda were bringing out a V5 and we still haven't seen that.
The reason given by Yamaha for not bringing out "big bang" engines in road bikes was that these produce considerably more vibration and there were reliablility concerns if such engines were installed in road bikes.
skelstar
21st June 2007, 15:51
Ever-so-slightly realted: what advantage is a V4 going to give over a V-twin? ...other than fuel flow characteristics in a smaller cylinder maybe?
onearmedbandit
21st June 2007, 16:01
The sound.
Deviant Esq
21st June 2007, 16:08
Ever-so-slightly realted: what advantage is a V4 going to give over a V-twin? ...other than fuel flow characteristics in a smaller cylinder maybe?
It's sorta like a halfway house between an inline four and a V twin. It's got the characteristics of the twin: more torque lower in the rev range, better cleaner power delivery to the road (because of the configuration of the cyliders and the firing order the rear wheel is less likely to break loose), and a great sound... and some of the advantages of an inline four: still makes a reasonably high specific output, and revs higher than a V twin, although lower than an IL4.
I reckon Honda should make a VFR800RR. That would be awesome, I'd be keen to give it a go.
xwhatsit
21st June 2007, 16:15
Ever-so-slightly realted: what advantage is a V4 going to give over a V-twin? ...other than fuel flow characteristics in a smaller cylinder maybe?
<hints id="hah_hints"></hints>Again, talking out of my arse, but I'd imagine for the same reason that four-cylinder engines are `better' (depending on your requirements) than twin-cylinder engines for sportsbikes.
EDIT: That sounds trite. What I mean is that sure a V4 would have much of the same benefits a straight four has over a V-2 in a sportsbike.
Toast
21st June 2007, 16:47
Stuff the 800, I'd take a thou'!
There are so few corners which are well-sighted enough to use the 800's extra cornering ability that it's a waste of time, in my view.
If I buy a light, powerful road bike again, it's gonna be real fuckin powerful...to the point that even I can pull mingin' 3rd gear wheelies down the motorway and show boy racers up in front of the chicks they're trying to impress.
And I don't think that Suzuki would be that fussed about Honda releasing an 800. Their 750 stuffed the 900cc Blades in practically every dimension of performance for years. Mind you, Suzuki would have a little more work to designs it in the mould of their new 600.
imdying
21st June 2007, 16:51
Ever-so-slightly realted: what advantage is a V4 going to give over a V-twin? ...other than fuel flow characteristics in a smaller cylinder maybe?More valve area (over a twin) and a slimmer motor (over a IL4)?
vifferman
21st June 2007, 16:52
Wotchootalking about - I already have an 800cc MotoGP replica: the RC46.
It's Eggs Zachary the same as the RC212V: it's a V4, (nearly) 800cc, it has two wheels, fuel injection, a rorty V4 sound, gear-driven cams, stuff like that.
It just has some extra things, like weight, a pillion seat, lights, a garage door opener, three (3!) horns, an Evo Star Shift Kit, O2 sensor eliminators, heated grips, battle scars, a Unifilter, a speedo corrector (and a speedo!), and stuff like that....
avgas
21st June 2007, 17:12
I dont see it happening. How many R7's you see around these days.
Even the RVF never really took off and they never made the full spec ones.
Dont forget the Norton rotarys.
Korea
21st June 2007, 18:54
Sure, I'll have one of those 800cc GP bikes...
Y'know, for trackdays and stuff...
skelstar
21st June 2007, 19:02
V4 vs V2 ...made the assumption that pairs of cylinders fire together. Maybe a correct one ;) ....valve area makes sense though..
cowpoos
21st June 2007, 19:14
Hold up dude..most of?? Only Yamaha are using inline four, everyone else is V4 now.
nope...kawas are inline4's bro...kawa was in 990cc form a bigbang inline so may have sounded like a V4 to some??
Marknz
21st June 2007, 19:16
there is talk of the new '08 Fireblade being a V4, but no suggestion it will drop down to 800cc ala MotoGP :yes:
cowpoos
21st June 2007, 19:30
Intrinsically 2 pairs of parallel twins bolted together. This, so I'm led to believe, increases the available of torque from the smaller displacement engine -
No...but what that would do is increase the vibrations by a large amount!!! lol
I think what your trying to discribe is the firing order of the inline fours?? 4 cyclinders in a row...the firing order of a number of race inline fours currently in and have been in MotoGP has been firing two cyclinders at a time..by having a rather interesting crankshaft installed...which simulates then firing order of a twin cyclinder engine...most likely a 90 degree V twin...this is a brillent firing order to aid in traction as it gives a larger gap in time between power pulse's for the rear tyre to re-gain traction....while still alowing for the higher air flowing advantages of the inline 4....
cowpoos
21st June 2007, 19:43
What I'm interested in is if the manufacturers brought out a crop of 800cc MotoGP replicas would you give up your equally developed 1000cc bike? Part of the appeal to me of the thou is the torque curve, and the way I see it if they brought out an 800cc bike with the same peak power it would not have the spread of torque the 1000cc bike would have. Or am I wrong?
Thoughts please.
(btw, I'm bringing imdyings and my posts across from the other thread.)
Well it depends directly how the engines tuned to behonest...there is no reason why a motorcycle company can't release a 800cc engine with the same power output...at the same rev's as a thou...and a bigger torque curve as its been called in this thread...[which I'm guessing is how you guys are discribing power at mid range rev's and lower???]...they just at this stage have no need to...or don't want to...as its not out of the techinlogical grasp of of any of the big companies really!!
I guess the main advantage of a 800cc sports bike would be one of weight...weight that lays in the reciprocating mass of all the moving parts...would make side to side transitions quicker...and braking quicker...the engines would theotetically rev fast as they have less mass in the pistons,conrods,crank,etc to suck horse power away from its intended source [the rear wheel of course of course]..probally lower diameter fork sanchtions [less stiction]..and possibly lighter in weight...
I would probally seriously consider buying one...I currently have a K4 750 bored-out 812cc GSX-R...it has a hell of a massive motor on it...as fast as a stock thou in a straight line...possibly more once it gets a tune...its an exciting thing to ride...bloody easy to wheelie [will hoist the front off the throttle in 4th gear with near stock gearing...1 tooth down at the front]..and it has plenty of grunt [torque or low and mid range power...what ever you want to call it]everywhere to satisfy anyone!! IMHO :yes:
BIGBOSSMAN
21st June 2007, 20:30
Don't know whether this has been mentioned, but Honda had the NR750 back in '92. I saw only one on the road here, an oval pistoned 750cc fuel injected statement of V4 engineering. Loosely based on their endurance racer (Le Mans etc), it is the most expensive road bike the company has ever built ($54000 - 5000000 yen). :Punk:
... they can't do a true rep using the GP stuff, cause that breaks ALL the prototype only laws for MotoGP.
...
What wold be REAL trick would be a track-day/race ready bike sold, that doesnt have to comply to emmision laws, or have the ability to ride slowly on the road, and in variying conditions...a bike that would be delivered on slicks or race tyres, with a race set up, and cast iorn at least brakes, lightweight rims that dont need to be strenthed for going up and down curbs...
Is a semi-mass-produced track bike sharing bits with the GP bike legit in terms of the rules? Is it only road-legal bikes they care about?
Richard
BIGBOSSMAN
21st June 2007, 22:31
No...but what that would do is increase the vibrations by a large amount!!! lol
I think what your trying to discribe is the firing order of the inline fours?? 4 cyclinders in a row...the firing order of a number of race inline fours currently in and have been in MotoGP has been firing two cyclinders at a time..by having a rather interesting crankshaft installed...which simulates then firing order of a twin cyclinder engine...most likely a 90 degree V twin...this is a brillent firing order to aid in traction as it gives a larger gap in time between power pulse's for the rear tyre to re-gain traction....while still alowing for the higher air flowing advantages of the inline 4....
Thanks for that Poos, this obviously accounts for the Motogp bikes V-4 like growl instead of the usual screaming note from conventional inline four engines. :niceone:
JayRacer37
21st June 2007, 22:59
nope...kawas are inline4's bro...kawa was in 990cc form a bigbang inline so may have sounded like a V4 to some??
HAH - too slow Poos, i've been corrected already ;)
JayRacer37
21st June 2007, 23:02
Is a semi-mass-produced track bike sharing bits with the GP bike legit in terms of the rules? Is it only road-legal bikes they care about?
Richard
Well, it doesn't become mass produced till it is sold as a road bike....theretically, Ducati Desomsedici RR is now homologated for WSB if they wanted too...but if they had sold it without lights, as a race bike...then no rules broken...Like in WSB, Ducati had to sell R models on the road to race them, even tho there were hundereds of RS models adapted from R's and sold as track bikes for WSB and international racing series.
JayRacer37
21st June 2007, 23:07
Ever-so-slightly realted: what advantage is a V4 going to give over a V-twin? ...other than fuel flow characteristics in a smaller cylinder maybe?
You get the 'pulse power' and traction of a V-twin, with the outright horsepower of a four cyl.
onearmedbandit
21st June 2007, 23:18
a bigger torque curve as its been called in this thread...[which I'm guessing is how you guys are discribing power at mid range rev's and lower???]...
Power is nothing without torque, and with less torque your engine has to work harder to get to the revs that produce the peak power. So torque is the main component I am referring to.
cowpoos
21st June 2007, 23:28
Power is nothing without torque, and with less torque your engine has to work harder to get to the revs that produce the peak power. So torque is the main component I am referring to.
yes...power is just a calculation of torque x rev's...torque is the force the engine produces...but power is the result of multipling torque in a time frame...so Revs per min is the time frame we measure everything by in reguard to engine output...and power is the measurement in which its done by... they are to separate things...and seem to be describe as one thing all the time... how discriptive is it if I said...my engine has low high rev torque?? it wouldn't be relitive at all to how much force [power] it will be generating at at high revs would it?
onearmedbandit
21st June 2007, 23:35
Stop being difficult, you know what I am saying!!! At the start of this thread I talked of the two bikes having the same power output, now general rule of thumb is that for less cc producing the same power the engine will be 'peakier', ie having the peak power and torque at higher positions in the rev range. Moving the peak torque figure up the rev range will have the effect of making the bike 'slower' at accelerating from lower rev's..
Well from my experience, and from what I've read.
cowpoos
21st June 2007, 23:45
Stop being difficult, you know what I am saying!!! At the start of this thread I talked of the two bikes having the same power output, now general rule of thumb is that for less cc producing the same power the engine will be 'peakier', ie having the peak power and torque at higher positions in the rev range. Moving the peak torque figure up the rev range will have the effect of making the bike 'slower' at accelerating from lower rev's..
Well from my experience, and from what I've read.
I was mainly correct the loosly used terms that everyone uses on here and everywhere...but anyway...moving peak torque further up the rev range can and just as easily make a bike faster accerlerating...it depends entirely on how the bike engine it tuned...without genralisations...high horse power is a result of being able to flow high volumes of air,higher into the rev range.... but its totally dependent on tuning...
Sanx
22nd June 2007, 02:21
Further to what Cowpoos said:
Engine power (hp) = [engine speed (rpm) * torque (ft/lb)] / 5252
As an engine's power is a product of the torque it produces and the engine speed, it's possible to have engines that produce high torque at low revs (Harleys, for instance) that still have a relatively low peak power output.
Roughly speaking, acceleration = torque / weight. If all other things are equal, a bike making 100 ft/lbs of torque at 2000 rpm will accelerate as fast as a bike making 100ft/lbs at 8000rpm. The top-speed of a bike though is generally determined by the peak power of the bike and its aerodynamics.
speed63
22nd June 2007, 11:23
For the road the 1000 (no replacement for displacement). Now if it was for the track, give me the 800 :yes:
codgyoleracer
22nd June 2007, 11:33
Unless superbike pulls back the CC limit - I dont see it happening in the near future. The psychie of the general public & the good ole U S of A is that bigger is better......... (plus a few women ivé known in the past)
No doubt an 800cc/155kg bike would be pretty handy to have though.........Just make it a V4 two stroke & you can have 140kg & still keep the 200hp....... OMG :shit:
BarBender
22nd June 2007, 11:37
No.
Too small.
onearmedbandit
22nd June 2007, 12:06
Roughly speaking, acceleration = torque / weight. If all other things are equal, a bike making 100 ft/lbs of torque at 2000 rpm will accelerate as fast as a bike making 100ft/lbs at 8000rpm. The top-speed of a bike though is generally determined by the peak power of the bike and its aerodynamics.
If your torque is higher up the rev range you will have to abuse the bike more to get to it, unless you like starting at high revs.
cowpoos
22nd June 2007, 12:35
If your torque is higher up the rev range you will have to abuse the bike more to get to it, unless you like starting at high revs.
it still depends on the many many variables on how a engine was tuned to deliver its power...
Nutter34
22nd June 2007, 12:50
Well, what does the average Gixxer 750 deliver now and where? How/where does it fit into the scales below? (Obviously as a reference, as an 800 will be a bit better/more)
I believe the discussion is for a road based bike, so it will be tuned accordingly...
If you compare torques only, any of the litre bikes has more torque at 4000, than any of the 600's at peak, around 11000-ish.
Found an older Superbike mag test... A K6 Gixxer 750... 132,5hp @ 13,1000 and 58,2 lb.ft @ 10500.
Mrs Busa Pete
22nd June 2007, 12:59
And yet, they still sell in great numbers. I agree on the 600 point, being able to screw it made it more fun to ride for me... I think I'd have misssed that on a thou. A nice buzzy motor gives more of the gp hero experience, if you see what I mean?
In the end, it might not even be in the hands of the manufacturers as to what we get... legislation might kill the hyper bikes before any market forces or whatever come into play.
the appeal of the biger bike is the lazy power on tap .if you ride every day every where you go you dont want to be ringing the nuts of a 600 all day just twist and go on the 07 gixer thou made for town and open road with the twin pipes or stop pissing around and just get a hayabusa.the 07 gixer was my choise of the 07 thous i test road befor geting the new bus if the gixer had a better rear seat we would have one instead. i found the zx10 to be unhappy around town with a heavy clutch
avgas
22nd June 2007, 13:04
bring back 2 strokes!!!
onearmedbandit
22nd June 2007, 13:42
it still depends on the many many variables on how a engine was tuned to deliver its power...
Bike a delivers its spread of torque at a higher rpm then bike b. Starting both bikes from say idle in 1st gear, which bike will accelerate quicker from standstill, without slipping the clutch?
BIGBOSSMAN
22nd June 2007, 15:04
the appeal of the biger bike is the lazy power on tap .if you ride every day every where you go you dont want to be ringing the nuts of a 600 all day just twist and go on the 07 gixer thou made for town and open road with the twin pipes or stop pissing around and just get a hayabusa.the 07 gixer was my choise of the 07 thous i test road befor geting the new bus if the gixer had a better rear seat we would have one instead. i found the zx10 to be unhappy around town with a heavy clutch
Quite right about the heavy clutch on the '10, I made the mistake of picking mine up once I'd bought it at 4pm on a Wednesday from Hunua. Riding back to Massey in peak rush hour turned into an ordeal as my right wrist turned to jelly. It's great on the open road, but I avoid traffic like the plague (well that's good then!) :yes:
Nutter34
22nd June 2007, 16:24
Quite right about the heavy clutch on the '10, I made the mistake of picking mine up once I'd bought it at 4pm on a Wednesday from Hunua. Riding back to Massey in peak rush hour turned into an ordeal as my right wrist turned to jelly. It's great on the open road, but I avoid traffic like the plague (well that's good then!) :yes:
Heavy clutch... Sore right wrist... You must have got an European or American version where the controls are swapped over...:dodge:
Nutter34
22nd June 2007, 16:27
But yes, The 10 does have a heavy clutch. Rode an '06 R1 and the clutch on that was as light as the Z1000's was.
speed63
22nd June 2007, 16:47
But yes, The 10 does have a heavy clutch. Rode an '06 R1 and the clutch on that was as light as the Z1000's was.
The 10 doesnt have a hydraulic clutch to save weight....pussies
R6_kid
22nd June 2007, 17:34
Im likely to sell my 1000 for a 600 so i think the 800 wouldn't be such a bad step. Truth be told, whould it be any different if the ZX-7R and R7 were kept in production and developed over the last 5-6 years? Then only honda would have to come up with something in that field.
I'm sure if the market was competitive then the 750's would be the best balance and many people would be riding them instead. Of their 1000 or 600.
Right now i can't justify owning a 1000cc bike other than it came up at a good price... the power on tap is OTT and takes more maturity than i have to keep my licence in my wallet. Modern 600's are getting to the point where they are able to make 135hp at the wheel which is as much as an R1/GSXR/CBR from 2000 was making (ok so the 1000 is stock and warn, and the 600 is modified and brand new)... but you still get that bit more ease of handling on the smaller bike.
I think if Yamaha sorted out said 'vibration and reliability issues' i would be dead keen on an 800cc version of the R6/R1... im sure lots of Honda riders would move to a v4 or v5 800cc bike too. For Kawasaki and Suzuki it's a bit moot, both companies have 1000cc bikes with cult followings, and increasing competetion in the 750/800 bracket may not neccesarily sway those customers away from their 1000cc boasting ability.
Would i swap my 1000cc for a 800cc Replica - Hell yes :Punk:
onearmedbandit
22nd June 2007, 17:41
I'm sure if the market was competitive then the 750's would be the best balance and many people would be riding them instead. Of their 1000 or 600.
Only Suzuki make a 750, and that is only because of its heritage. Racing gave us the 600 and 1000cc bikes.
Modern 600's are getting to the point where they are able to make 135hp at the wheel which is as much as an R1/GSXR/CBR from 2000 was making
But the torque levels between them are vastly different. A 1000 pulls much better in top gear at 100km/h, making it an 'easier' bike to live with.
I think if Yamaha sorted out said 'vibration and reliability issues' i would be dead keen on an 800cc version of the R6/R1
I think the remarks made about 'vibration and reliability issues' were made in reference to 'big bang' race engines, not Yamahas in general.
R6_kid
22nd June 2007, 17:59
Only Suzuki make a 750, and that is only because of its heritage. Racing gave us the 600 and 1000cc bikes.
Ahh... ZX7R, and R7... both are 750cc bikes, i was meaning if both the R7 and ZX7R were still in production there would be more reason for development in that class of bikes. Suzuki can do what they want with GSXR750 as long as it is a good balance between the 1000cc and the 600cc.
But the torque levels between them are vastly different. A 1000 pulls much better in top gear at 100km/h, making it an 'easier' bike to live with.
Yes i know that, but if you are a good rider, utilising the cornering speed of the 600 sort of cancels that out in twisty roads. The amount of acceleration available at 230kmh on the GSXR1000k3 scared me more than doing 265kmh on the open road on my R6.
I think the remarks made about 'vibration and reliability issues' were made in reference to 'big bang' race engines, not Yamahas in general.
I know that, it's to do with the M1R. I was saying that if they engine could be made reliable and have less vibration (to warrant it going in a road bike) i would be keen on one.
There was a write up about Virgin Yamaha in BSB testing their 05 R1 in a 'big bang' setup, it can be done if you want but it costs $$$
onearmedbandit
22nd June 2007, 18:50
Yes i know that, but if you are a good rider, utilising the cornering speed of the 600 sort of cancels that out in twisty roads. The amount of acceleration available at 230kmh on the GSXR1000k3 scared me more than doing 265kmh on the open road on my R6.
I'm not talking about being the fastest through corners or making up for anything in regards to that. Read my post again.
BIGBOSSMAN
22nd June 2007, 23:52
Heavy clutch... Sore right wrist... You must have got an European or American version where the controls are swapped over...:dodge:
Fuck. It sounds very blonde don't it? I must proof read my bs posts from now on. Left wrist!:doh: !
boomer
23rd June 2007, 01:00
Torque is only good for pulling... ditch all the thou associated lard and you'll not miss it. Twin mufflers on the GSXR1000K7 anyone :rofl:
yes thanks. i decided on pig ugly rather than the femininity of a vtwin, i needed to get rid of that stigma and an sv wouldn't have helped.. now would it?!
the laziness of the thou is unreal, feels more sedate even tho you're riding faster, where as the 6 you make her scream .. so its all perception ( more noise means faster.. riiiight...??!!). the thou's dont weigh much more than a 6 now adays.. in fact the k6 thou is lighter than my old cbr6 '05.
yeah i'd own a 800cc gp replica just so i could flop my old fella on teh table :Punk:
sAsLEX
3rd July 2007, 05:07
more noise means faster.. riiiight...??!!)
you saying a Duke on song wearing Termis is quiet?
Or a KTM Duke on Akrapovics is a quiet whisper?
boomer
3rd July 2007, 07:39
you saying a Duke on song wearing Termis is quiet?
Or a KTM Duke on Akrapovics is a quiet whisper?
no, i'm saying my perception of speed is changed by having or not having loud pipes.
the louder they are the faster i perceive myself to be going.:yes:
pritch
3rd July 2007, 08:31
the louder they are the faster i perceive myself to be going.:yes:
You are not alone.
Tests were conducted on Formula 1 drivers many years ago and they all thought the noisier car was faster.
sAsLEX
3rd July 2007, 08:40
You are not alone.
Tests were conducted on Formula 1 drivers many years ago and they all thought the noisier car was faster.
The higher pitch might have something to do with it, doppler and all that good stuff!
I know Joe Public and the police seem to base some of their speed guestimates on sound levels.
I'm way ahead of you. Already switched to the 800 class! Oh, sorry, he said MotoGP 800 replicas for the road. Well they don't exist ..yet. But when they do come out, and I think they will in 2 or 3 more years, they will be awesome and I for one will be at the front of the queue.
All I really want is a bigger ZXR 636 but not a thou. The 636 motor produced damn good torque.
Personally the 1000s do nothing for me. Like what Big Dave was harping on about, all that power and no where to unleash it, or even taste it.
R1madness
3rd July 2007, 10:40
I have a Japaneese bike mag that shows the NEW VFR800 RC212V replica due out 2009. If honda are looking into it you can bet that the others will not be far behind.
R1madness
3rd July 2007, 10:52
There was a write up about Virgin Yamaha in BSB testing their 05 R1 in a 'big bang' setup, it can be done if you want but it costs $$$
It is not that hard to make a 4 cylinder into a big bang motor, You only need to get new cams made that phase the cam timing correctly. Everything else is fine. No changes to electronics needed initally, only some fine tuning.
Fun fun fun.
Gremlin
3rd July 2007, 23:36
After my zx7r, I would have loved a 750/800... The only one was the gsxr750, and for a thousand more, you got the killer torque of the thou... It makes the 750 a rip off.
Torque is good for road riding, thous are mental for trying to keep your license...
No-one neeeeeds a thou, but when you can keep up with/be faster than the 600, you're doing better, as you have more to keep under control :devil2: Thous have the grin factor... you feel good all the time... just because... its a 1 litre bike!!
pritch
4th July 2007, 10:21
I have a Japaneese bike mag that shows the NEW VFR800 RC212V replica due out 2009. If honda are looking into it you can bet that the others will not be far behind.
Well, I wouldn't bet too much on that. They are over twenty years behind so far. And counting....
imdying
4th July 2007, 10:34
Well, I wouldn't bet too much on that. They are over twenty years behind so far. And counting....Sorry I don't understand, who are behind what? :mellow:
BIGBOSSMAN
5th July 2007, 23:30
http://www.raptorsandrockets.com/News/2007_Kawasaki.htm
:Punk:
imdying
6th July 2007, 08:07
R&R are most famous for being totally full of shite, I wouldn't put any faith into anything that comes from that site.
slowpoke
6th July 2007, 12:39
The key word here is "REPLICA".
Very few of us are prepared to pay anywhere near the dosh to buy something remotely close to a MotoGP bike. We had the chance with the Ducati and not too many of us signed up or would sign up if they made another 5000 of the things.
We just aren't prepared to pay for sandcast magnesium engine cases, machined from billet alloy frames, titanium con rods, carbon fibre self supporting pillion-less seats, magnesium rims, engine life spans that are meausured in hours, engine management that has enough computing power to launch a space shuttle etc etc.
If you dumb the package down to something useable at an affordable price you just get what we've already got. That's how we arrived at the current configuration. It's cheaper to cast/machine one four cylinder cylinder head than it is to cast/machine 2 2 cylinder heads for the V4's, same goes for camshafts etc.
We can already fit aftermarket equipment to rival MotoGP (magnesium rims, engine management systems, carbon fibre bodywork, billet alloy whatever etc etc) and/or screw +200hp out of our sportsbikes yet very few of us choose to do so, so why are we kidding ourselves that we'd leap out and buy one of these things at an exhorbitant cost.
So all we are left with is a styling exercise......
imdying
6th July 2007, 12:57
Actually the key word isn't replica... in fact, the title of this thread (created by oab from a thread split, not by me as it would look) is quite misleading... the 800cc part of my original discussion with oab was actually nothing to with motogp at all.
I merely was commenting that I believe that the thous will naturally get replaced by 800cc bikes with the same sort of focus (lowest weight, highest power)...
In other words, in a few years Honda (for example) will stop producing a CBR1000, and start producing a CBR800 instead... perhaps because they'll eventually get to more power than is usable, they want to avoid being legislated against (the whole human missile deathtrap yada yada thing), they want to reap the benefits oh lighter weight, perhaps also to bask in some of the reflected motogp glory, maybe easier to comply for emissions (not necessarily because they're cleaner, just because they may in the future fit into an easier testing bracket, whatever).
The mack daddys of old were 12-1300cc bikes , then 1100cc bikes, currently we have the 1000cc bikes, it's my personal opinion that the new generation top of the range sportsbikes won't be 1000cc but 800cc... and my top reasoning for that is they want the bikes closer to 150kg instead of 170kg.
/edit: In fact, the whole poll is a crock of shite (even if my 'team is winning' :rofl:). What I'm saying is that there isn't going to be an option... if you want the top of the range sportsbike, there will only be the 800... the thous will have naturally evolved into sports tourers like the GSXR1100 did. Some would say blah blah blah I'll always want the torque... whatever... the old guys probably said the same thing about the 1300cc bikes... turns out the GSXR1000 has more torque than those ever did (if not in peak, certainly in spread)... not to mention 220kg GSXR1100 vs 170kg GSXR1000... you only need torque to pull your lard along anyway.
slowpoke
6th July 2007, 15:02
Okly dokly, I see where you are coming from...or is that going...er, I understand anyway.....kinda...sorta...almost.......
No matter what was available I'd buy the bestest, baddest sportsbike that I could afford (which ain't much) and if that was an 800 then so be it.
BUT, I can't see the manufacturers volountarily making 800's to the demise of the thou's.
Do car manufacturers reduce the size of their vehicles and engines with the progress of technology? Nope. Look at the progress of say a Commodore or a 3 series BMW over the years. They are substantially bigger in both physical size and engine capacity yet somehow more efficient.
And so it will be with sportsbikes in the future. Amazingly bikes keep getting quicker and lighter and most importantly easier to ride. Who would have thought 20 years ago that you could have a bike like any of the latest 'thou's that wasn't an absolute widow maker, yet they are easier to ride than comparitively slow performance bikes of old. Progress is inevitable so, barring legislation, the trend will continue.
xwhatsit
6th July 2007, 17:52
Okly dokly, I see where you are coming from...or is that going...er, I understand anyway.....kinda...sorta...almost.......
No matter what was available I'd buy the bestest, baddest sportsbike that I could afford (which ain't much) and if that was an 800 then so be it.
BUT, I can't see the manufacturers volountarily making 800's to the demise of the thou's.
Do car manufacturers reduce the size of their vehicles and engines with the progress of technology? Nope. Look at the progress of say a Commodore or a 3 series BMW over the years. They are substantially bigger in both physical size and engine capacity yet somehow more efficient.
And so it will be with sportsbikes in the future. Amazingly bikes keep getting quicker and lighter and most importantly easier to ride. Who would have thought 20 years ago that you could have a bike like any of the latest 'thou's that wasn't an absolute widow maker, yet they are easier to ride than comparitively slow performance bikes of old. Progress is inevitable so, barring legislation, the trend will continue.
<hints id="hah_hints"></hints>Well forget about the Commodores and BMW 3s -- car manufacturers may be doing one thing, but Imdying just pointed out that this is already a trend occurring in bikes anyway -- that's why there are 1000s instead of 1300s in the first place.
Engines have got bigger; 650s used to be the thing, they turned into 750s with the 1969 CB750, and then capacities shot up for a while. But in the past twenty years, bleeding edge sportsbikes have become smaller. Why wouldn't the trend continue for now, especially with the MotoGP advertising?
slowpoke
6th July 2007, 19:42
<hints id="hah_hints"></hints>Well forget about the Commodores and BMW 3s -- car manufacturers may be doing one thing, but Imdying just pointed out that this is already a trend occurring in bikes anyway -- that's why there are 1000s instead of 1300s in the first place.
Engines have got bigger; 650s used to be the thing, they turned into 750s with the 1969 CB750, and then capacities shot up for a while. But in the past twenty years, bleeding edge sportsbikes have become smaller. Why wouldn't the trend continue for now, especially with the MotoGP advertising?
Nope, sorry I disagree. One of the most legendary sportsbikes of all time, the Vincent Black Shadow was a 998cc twin made in 1948. Or a Brough Superior SS100 in 1924 with 1000cc JAP donks was the schizz at the time.
Yeah, you've got your 'busa's and ZX12R's of recent times but I can't actually think of a serious race winning bike that has been more than 1100cc's in recent times so I can't see what this so called shrinking trend is based on and 100cc is hardly a major reduction in capacity.
Thinking about your 20year example, the Honda RC30 was probably the trickest thing you could buy in 1988 and it was a 750.
The Fireblade was a milestone bike in 1992 (15years ago!) and continued to lead the way until the R1 came out in 1998. The first 'blades were only 900cc and grew to 1000cc along with everything else in the top echelon, so you could argue that bikes are getting bigger in recent times, especially with introduction of the 1200 Ducati next year in WSBK.
Sportsbikes getting smaller? Nup.
imdying
7th July 2007, 09:07
Thinking about your 20year example, the Honda RC30 was probably the trickest thing you could buy in 1988 and it was a 750.Mmmm, capacity limited for racing... sounds familiar.
The Fireblade was a milestone bike in 1992 (15years ago!) and continued to lead the way until the R1 came out in 1998.Interestingly both of those bikes had larger capacities, but were smaller (lighter) than the previous generations.
Sportsbikes getting smaller? Nup.The only constant in the last 10 years is bikes getting smaller. Once they compact a thousand as far as possible, then the only option left is to start reducing capacity.
pritch
7th July 2007, 10:41
Sorry I don't understand, who are behind what? :mellow:
Ummm Honda have produced V4 racing bikes, sports bikes, sports touring, and touring bikes, and even cruisers over a considerable number of years now.
With the exception of the current crop of Moto GP bikes none of the other manufacturers have shown much interest in the form. So any that do are already twenty plus years behind Honda. And counting.
All of which was prompted by the comment that "the others will not be far behind".
The much rumoured V5 didn't happen (yet?), so I'm not holding my breath waiting for the new V4. We can but live in hope:yes:
imdying
7th July 2007, 10:47
Ahhh, now I see what you mean :yes: Yes, quite right... I wouldn't want to be competing with Honda if the mack daddy sports bike class moved from IL4s to V4s, they sure do have more experience than all the other factories put together :yes:
If there was to be a break to 800s sometime in the next 3-5 years, I would expect it to come from Honda, and given their history, I wouldn't be surprised if it were a V4.
slowpoke
7th July 2007, 18:08
The only constant in the last 10 years is bikes getting smaller. Once they compact a thousand as far as possible, then the only option left is to start reducing capacity.
Yeah I see what you mean, but I think maybe the physical size will be limited more by ergonomics and handling rather than engine size.
The difference in size between say a GSXR600, 750 and 1000's is virtually non-existent with many parts being interchangeable, although the smaller bikes can be made slightly lighter due to less stress on components (frames thinner etc), lighter crank etc.
The stability of a physically tiny bike would also be a major concern given a decent amount of horsepower. Shorter wheelbases are going to make 'em more wheely/stoppie prone (that's why some cruisers can outbrake sportsbikes).
The smaller engine/gearbox packages available now has already allowed a trend towards longer swingarms though so we may see more interesting developments as more room is created. It used to be a case of you couldn't fit a compressor and associated complexity/weight to run pneumatic valves but now we are seeing exactly that on the track.
There are interesting times ahead.
imdying
7th July 2007, 18:14
The smaller engine/gearbox packages available now has already allowed a trend towards longer swingarms though so we may see more interesting developments as more room is created. It used to be a case of you couldn't fit a compressor and associated complexity/weight to run pneumatic valves but now we are seeing exactly that on the track.
There are interesting times ahead.That's a good point... the bikes might not actually look smaller, there's just more they can do with mass centralisation and the like.
cowpoos
8th July 2007, 12:24
.
The stability of a physically tiny bike would also be a major concern given a decent amount of horsepower. Shorter wheelbases are going to make 'em more wheely/stoppie prone (that's why some cruisers can outbrake sportsbikes).
.
Why I beg to differ good sir... stability of a smaller bike with high horsepower is only really down to geometry... and as for the chasis handling the engines...I'm one of a very few amount of people that has first hand experience racing a 800cc modern high horse power sportsbike...apart from the engine being a fricken handfull as far as power delivery goes...she handles pretty dam good!!! stops as good as any...but is a lil prone to wheelie's...which is a power delivery,geometry issuse that hopefully can be dialed out at some stage!! the concept is a brillent one...as when Shaun Harris built the bike it was very sucsessful!! Jarrod Love has even commented that Shaun was pulling away from him slightly on the main straight of ruapuna...and he was on a highly worked CBR1000RR...with no shortage of grunt...honda jokes aside...honda thous in race form ain't a slow machine!!
In superbike form my bike [shauns harris ex race bike] was making 153hp...I can only guess what Jarrod Loves honda was making...but I dare say it would be on the happy side of 180hp...
The Idea of having the low weight spinning internals help reduce horse power losses by a heap...and also while braking...you can slow them down faster!! even if its by fractions of a fraction of a second..its an advantge..lower gyroscopic effect from all the recipricating internals is also an big advantage for changing direction...the down side from what I've experienced...is you have a bike thats incredibly physically demanding to ride!! [and I mean fucking physically demanding to ride!!!]and involving!! as others that have ridden my bike can contest to [ie:Mr white trash]...its a testament to the skill and fitness of shaun and jason mcquewn who have ridden this machine to good results...not to mention Trashys 4th at the wairarapa hill climb after bugger all time on the bike...and the fact if was tring to hoist the front wheel in 4th gear off the power at times [not desired when racing...it is cool though!!] and being one of the cunty-est bikes to get off the line!!!
I would given the $$$$ love to develop another GSX-R750 [k8 ;)] to a 800cc bike...and refine it to be easier to ride on the track...make it work like a 600 with more power...as the 600's are but a few seconds a lap or less off superbikes...even at pukie!
FkNAmerican
8th July 2007, 15:29
to answer your question: Yes, if Honda were to produce an 800cc bike with the weight (or near to) of the current 600 series in a few years time I would buy it in the blink of an eye. Im already looking long and hard at the GSXR750.......so the idea of an 800 with the weight of the current 600's but the peak power (or near to) of a 1000 is VERY interesting to me.
I know alot of peeps who have ridden liter bikes like the R1 and GSXR1000 for the past few years. Every time they get back on the latest crop of 600's they are shocked at how fun they are to ride especially in the twisties. I can see alot of peeps moving down (or up) to 800's if they big guys start rolling them out.
imdying
8th July 2007, 22:14
Some cruisers might be able to apply marginally greater braking forces (on road tyres), what happens in the corner next... there's your trade off swinging back the other way, big time.
cowpoos
8th July 2007, 22:22
Some cruisers might be able to apply marginally greater braking forces (on road tyres), what happens in the corner next... there's your trade off swinging back the other way, big time.
I don't think a cruiser could out brake a mofern sports bike....infact I don't think it would have a shit show!!
sAsLEX
8th July 2007, 22:28
I don't think a cruiser could out brake a mofern sports bike....infact I don't think it would have a shit show!!
Sprot bikes have issues with the rear floating under heavy braking and a tiny contact patch, compare to a cruiser that might weigh a bit more but has say twice the rubber one the road and no propensity to lift the rear??
imdying
8th July 2007, 22:30
It seems unplausible, but there have been tests done, and indeed some of the sportier cruisers can outbrake some sportsbikes. We're talking metres here though, the difference isn't significant. As much as anything, what it shows is that the sportsbikes are being held back by tyre technology, rather than the cruisers wheelbase being particularly good brakers. imho. That's why I mentioned road tyres, as opposed to slicks. Having said that though... redoing the tests with the sportsbikes on top of the line road tyres instead of their oem tyres (iirc the mag that did the test had the bikes in oem condition), would see the sportsbikes back on top. Even that statement is loaded though... back on top makes it sounds like they were far behind the cruisers... they weren't.
sAsLEX
8th July 2007, 22:35
It seems unplausible, but there have been tests done, and indeed some of the sportier cruisers can outbrake some sportsbikes. We're talking metres here though, the difference isn't significant. As much as anything, what it shows is that the sportsbikes are being held back by tyre technology, rather than the cruisers wheelbase being particularly good brakers. imho. That's why I mentioned road tyres, as opposed to slicks. Having said that though... redoing the tests with the sportsbikes on top of the line road tyres instead of their oem tyres (iirc the mag that did the test had the bikes in oem condition), would see the sportsbikes back on top. Even that statement is loaded though... back on top makes it sounds like they were far behind the cruisers... they weren't.
And I don't think tires are ever going to up the braking capacity of a bike that far. An F1 car outbrakes a bike, or most cars for that matter, without even going near the brakes lifting off pulling over 1g of decel.
What bikes need is a dynamic fairing, think Veyron and its wing, that smooths and covers the rider down the straight, turns into a airbrake/wing at the end and just gets out of the way for the corners......... hmmmmm
imdying
8th July 2007, 22:39
Tyres are everything. If you were to design a bike, tyres are where you'd start. Another good reason for going to 800s I guess... eventually the thous will get to 200rwhp... what would a tyre that can handle that weigh?
Prodrive (the guys that did the Subaru 555 rally cars) have experimented with active fairing panels, google for it, it's probably on the web somewhere.
sAsLEX
8th July 2007, 22:46
Tyres are everything.
Ah but they are never going to beat physics. Without a down force, you are only ever going to get weight pushing down against the tarmac. A tire is going to assist in the amount of traction that can be harnessed for a specific force, but there are limits to general tire adhesion. About 1g at a guess as this is around max accel. for a bike and also cornering force for non aero cars.
cowpoos
8th July 2007, 22:48
And I don't think tires are ever going to up the braking capacity of a bike that far. An F1 car outbrakes a bike, or most cars for that matter, without even going near the brakes lifting off pulling over 1g of decel.
What bikes need is a dynamic fairing, think Veyron and its wing, that smooths and covers the rider down the straight, turns into a airbrake/wing at the end and just gets out of the way for the corners......... hmmmmm
you mean like a rider sitting up while braking???
and tyres make a stuff load of differnce...race tyres are alot grippier that road rubber...once warm...and suspension and geometry has alot to do with it also..the rider has a big part to play...his body position can knock serious metres of braking!!
imdying
8th July 2007, 22:49
Perhaps tyre technology will evolve into active tyres that deform to increase their contact patch. Don't take up engineering as an occupation, you've no imagination.
cowpoos
8th July 2007, 22:50
Ah but they are never going to beat physics. Without a down force, you are only ever going to get weight pushing down against the tarmac. A tire is going to assist in the amount of traction that can be harnessed for a specific force, but there are limits to general tire adhesion. About 1g at a guess as this is around max accel. for a bike and also cornering force for non aero cars.
cars stop quicker because of the contact patch...pure and simple!!
cowpoos
8th July 2007, 22:51
eventually the thous will get to 200rwhp... what would a tyre that can handle that weigh?
.
probally less than the one on your bike...I have one on the back of mine..
cowpoos
8th July 2007, 22:52
Perhaps tyre technology will evolve into active tyres that deform to increase their contact patch. Don't take up engineering as an occupation, you've no imagination.
tyres do that anyway on bikes!!
imdying
8th July 2007, 22:58
probally less than the one on your bike...I have one on the back of mine..I was thinking more with oem longevity requirements in mind :lol:
imdying
8th July 2007, 23:00
tyres do that anyway on bikes!!They surely do :yes: Not actively controlled yet though, that'll be cool.
cowpoos
8th July 2007, 23:01
I was thinking more with oem longevity requirements in mind :lol:
lol...I knew what you ment mate...was just a stirring coment...
But pirreli super corsa pro's [the new generation tyres] are proving to have good longevity in road racing world wide...on the superbikes even...and think how much shit those tyres are dished up...and these are road legal tyres
imdying
8th July 2007, 23:05
Yeah I know :lol: The engineer crack was a troll do :rofl: You're an engineer right saslex?
sAsLEX
8th July 2007, 23:08
Don't take up engineering as an occupation, you've no imagination.
snap too late.
I just see other areas as being able to provide more improvement. And since I didn't do chemical and materials I was more looking at things I could possibly tinker with.
And Cowpoos I do realise this is why you sit up at the end of the straight. Wrong placement of elbows is equivalent to 20HP in the search for speed, hence why Caparossi was rather a bit quicker on his duke when it first came out compared to his team mate, his crouch was better.
sAsLEX
8th July 2007, 23:29
This is obviously the solution to the braking problem.....
<embed src="http://videos.caught-on-video.com/vidiac.swf" FlashVars="video=8e766634-f8ac-4385-9891-bd5d0e748732" quality="high" bgcolor="#ffffff" width="428" height="352" name="ePlayer" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="sameDomain" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed>
slowpoke
9th July 2007, 11:08
I don't think a cruiser could out brake a mofern sports bike....infact I don't think it would have a shit show!!
Yeah, I thought the same bro but I read a test that showed a reasonably lightweight cruiser can outbrake a sportsbike.
The steep steering geometry and weight forward bias of sportsbikes makes them stoppie prone where a cruiser with it's low centre of gravity and shallower steering rake will tend to plough/slide the front end rather than lift the rear. This meant they could get on both brakes (rear useless on a sportsbike with rear wheel in air) harder without being limited by the bike wanting to flip and plant the rider like a fence post.
I can't even remember which cruisers it was now, and it was only a couple out of about 20 odd that excelled, with not a lot of real difference in it.
Obviously the things that help it brake also make the cruiser crap at corners. The tests were also based on one off efforts without repeated hard braking.
Obviously if the cruiser weighs 300kg's then it's got shit show of pulling up as well as a 170kg sportsbike.
slowpoke
9th July 2007, 12:08
Why I beg to differ good sir... stability of a smaller bike with high horsepower is only really down to geometry... and as for the chasis handling the engines...I'm one of a very few amount of people that has first hand experience racing a 800cc modern high horse power sportsbike...apart from the engine being a fricken handfull as far as power delivery goes...she handles pretty dam good!!! stops as good as any...but is a lil prone to wheelie's...which is a power delivery,geometry issuse that hopefully can be dialed out at some stage!! the concept is a brillent one...as when Shaun Harris built the bike it was very sucsessful!! Jarrod Love has even commented that Shaun was pulling away from him slightly on the main straight of ruapuna...and he was on a highly worked CBR1000RR...with no shortage of grunt...honda jokes aside...honda thous in race form ain't a slow machine!!
In superbike form my bike [shauns harris ex race bike] was making 153hp...I can only guess what Jarrod Loves honda was making...but I dare say it would be on the happy side of 180hp...
The Idea of having the low weight spinning internals help reduce horse power losses by a heap...and also while braking...you can slow them down faster!! even if its by fractions of a fraction of a second..its an advantge..lower gyroscopic effect from all the recipricating internals is also an big advantage for changing direction...the down side from what I've experienced...is you have a bike thats incredibly physically demanding to ride!! [and I mean fucking physically demanding to ride!!!]and involving!! as others that have ridden my bike can contest to [ie:Mr white trash]...its a testament to the skill and fitness of shaun and jason mcquewn who have ridden this machine to good results...not to mention Trashys 4th at the wairarapa hill climb after bugger all time on the bike...and the fact if was tring to hoist the front wheel in 4th gear off the power at times [not desired when racing...it is cool though!!] and being one of the cunty-est bikes to get off the line!!!
I would given the $$$$ love to develop another GSX-R750 [k8 ;)] to a 800cc bike...and refine it to be easier to ride on the track...make it work like a 600 with more power...as the 600's are but a few seconds a lap or less off superbikes...even at pukie!
Imdying was talking about bikes getting phyiscally smaller (not just capacity) and I was meaning a physically smaller/shorter bike (say 100mm shorter wheelbase) would be more unstable. I reckon the thing would be on one wheel or the other and rarely on both.
I hear what you are saying re the GSXR vs CBR but it's hard to compare apples to lemons (geddit? Honda->lemon, lol). Your bike is definitely a weapon Mr 'Poos (and sounds the mutts nuts too) but without a similarly developed thou it's difficult to compare. The gixxer's crank has probably been lightened the CBR's may not have been, gixxer may have close ratio gearbox etc etc.
As you said, the difficulty in riding the thing (have ya got the PCIII yet slacker?) is the downside of developing a peakier smaller capacity bike to compete against larger capacity machines. You are a good rider and may be able to tame it but wallopers like me have got no show of being able to exploit the advantages.
To refine it to make it easier to ride is going to be difficult without losing the grunt that has been squeezed out of it...it's the age old compromise really. It's almost like the old days of Torana XU1's vs Falcon GTHO's with totally different idea's of how to tackle the same problem of getting around a track as quick as possible. Both work but each suits a different track.
What we need is for you and Trashy to do some wife oops I mean bike swapping and do some testing with Trashy's new thou and your bike back to back...be an interesting experiment.
cowpoos
9th July 2007, 19:42
I was meaning a physically smaller/shorter bike (say 100mm shorter wheelbase) would be more unstable. I reckon the thing would be on one wheel or the other and rarely on both.
I think they have pretty much reached the limit of how short wheel base's can go...if the can compact up the engines a bit more in the SB and SS classes tey might beable to keep the swingarm lenghts about the same and shorten the wheelbases a bit more... MotoGP wheelbases are a lil bit longer than most thou's I believe??
What we need is for you and Trashy to do some wife oops I mean bike swapping and do some testing with Trashy's new thou and your bike back to back...be an interesting experiment.
I doubt Trashy will let me breath on his new machine...let alone ever swing a leg over it!! but it would be a interesting test!
imdying
9th July 2007, 19:56
Imdying was talking about bikes getting phyiscally smaller (not just capacity) and I was meaning a physically smaller/shorter bike (say 100mm shorter wheelbase) would be more unstable.Something to ponder... a GSXR600 and a GSXR1000 are the same size :yes:
Assuming a typically styled chassis, it appears that there are ideal dimensions... of course, weight, positioning of the motor, things like that, they all have an effect, which is why although all sportsbikes are nearly the same dimensions, they all handle differently. For example, 17" wheels, 1300 odd mm wheelbase, that sort of stuff. Anyway, if they were to take 100mm out of the wheelbase for some reason, it seems like a pretty safe bet that they would've have a pretty good reason. Perhaps a longer and longer swingarms will give them the ability to shorten wheelbases without compromising stability, although I'd be putting my money on telescopic forks being ditched being the reason they can get away with it (assuming that were to happen).
Rather than compacting the bike lengthwise, I think they'll put more effort into making the thous thinner... the CBR600 and the R6 with their unconventional side fairings are an excellent example of this... the RC212V and the R6 both point towards sportsbike being made even more impractical in regards to passengers. That might be another nod for the 800s though... the 800s may be uncompromised sportsbikes, the 1000s retaining their reasonable passenger carrying ability as they settle into a middle age spread. They thous will never be slower than they are, the 800s will merely be faster.
sAsLEX
9th July 2007, 23:28
Rather than compacting the bike lengthwise, I think they'll put more effort into making the thous thinner... the CBR600 and the R6 with their unconventional side fairings are an excellent example of this... the RC212V and the R6 both point towards sportsbike being made even more impractical in regards to passengers. That might be another nod for the 800s though... the 800s may be uncompromised sportsbikes, the 1000s retaining their reasonable passenger carrying ability as they settle into a middle age spread. They thous will never be slower than they are, the 800s will merely be faster.
Kinda like the Duke and the Duke R, release a more pointed sports orientated version....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.