No small torque.

[Big Dave]

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/david_cohen_design/.Pictures/misc2/r3engine.jpg">


Walking through the Triumph warehouse with one of their UK techs and there is a Rocket III Engine on a shipping palette.

'See that starter motor' he says - pointing to one of the few things still attached.

'That starter motor makes more Torque than an 883 Sportster.'

[paturoa]

My zook starter motor prolly does too.

Most multi-pole brush elecky motors make a shit load of torque, that is marketing speak.

[Maki]

Torque is overrated. Give me a lever long enough and I can generate more torque than a V8 engine with my little finger.

[Big Dave]

My zook starter motor prolly does too.

Most multi-pole brush elecky motors make a shit load of torque, that is marketing speak.


How fast would 1:1 scale slot cars go?

[Big Dave]

Torque is overrated. Give me a lever long enough and I can generate more torque than a V8 engine with my little finger.

'Torque is what it's all about. You ride with Torque.' - Buell, E.

[paturoa]

How fast would 1:1 scale slot cars go?

Yeah if you could scale those suckers up and scale the accleration etc - now that would way scary

[HornetBoy]

'That starter motor makes more Torque than an 883 Sportster.'

What about a 1200cc sporty :bleh:

Blardy hell thats a beast of a motor :rolleyes:

[Maki]

'Torque is what it's all about. You ride with Torque.' - Buell, E.

Torque, and anything else for that matter, is nothing without power.

[98tls]

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/david_cohen_design/.Pictures/misc2/r3engine.jpg">


Walking through the Triumph warehouse with one of their UK techs and there is a Rocket III Engine on a shipping palette.

'See that starter motor' he says - pointing to one of the few things still attached.

'That starter motor makes more Torque than an 883 Sportster.' Nice,there has to be some compensation for sitting astride possibly the ugliest combination to be labled a motorcycle.

[Big Dave]

Nice,there has to be some compensation for sitting astride possibly the ugliest combination to be labled a motorcycle.

Says the guy on a pea green Suzuki.

[Ixion]

A somewhat meaningless comparison. It's an electric motor, they develop peak torque at stall. Torque developed is limited only by the point at which they burn out

[Big Dave]

Torque developed is limited only by the point at which they burn out

The more I hear the more I like.

[munterk6]

you guys are all torque:spanking:

[Virago]

you guys are all torque:spanking:

...and torque is cheap.

[Boob Johnson]

you guys are all torque:spanking:
lol

Electric motors have a flat torque curve, no comparison, he is just trying the old sales trick.............baffle you with bullshit :innocent:

[SixPackBack]

Electronically commutated motors are the next generation, promising efficiency ratings of over 85%. Utilising back electromagnetic flux to establish a relationship between moving and stationary motor parts-a programmed chip drives the motor.
Typical savings in weight are 30-50%-efficiency gain over conventional can be better than 50%.
This technology is currently being aggressively pursued in N.Z, it will revolutionise your world...........and Triumph starter motors!

[jrandom]

The more I hear the more I like.

You haven't yet grokked electric motors?

Yes, their performance characteristics are quite something, particularly when compared with what one gets from the crude and inelegant idea of burning stuff and using the resulting gas pressure to push against pistons.

It's a pity that electric batteries have been one of the slowest-progressing technological areas over the last century.

But, yes, congratulations on being suckered in by technically-correct marketing spin.

Heck, an 883 Sportster's starter engine probably makes more torque than an 883 Sportster!

:laugh:

[Big Dave]

Suckered?- it was a laff.

[nallac]

well the movie Torque sucked...............................

[HenryDorsetCase]

When people torque about torque I never know what they're torquing about. It is as mysterious to me as many other things which are also mysterious, such as what a clitoris is, where it may be located, or indeed whether such a mythical beast even exists. I'll never know, I'm not going down there without a chair, a whip and a pistol. Its like the jungle in brazil. Yet a brazilian seems defined as an absence of jungle. Again, I have no idea what you, or I, am torquing about.

[Daffyd]

Heck, an 883 Sportster's starter engine probably makes more torque than an 883 Sportster!

:laugh:

Has an 883 Sportster got a starter engine? :chase:

[Thunder 8]

:laugh:The definition of Torque is : waking up with a morning hard on , going to take a leak and having to push your old fella down and your feet fly out from under you.:doh:

[Boob Johnson]

Torquing about torque here's some more torque (1:36)
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lWItNukwxqM&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lWItNukwxqM&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[oldrider]

Just a lot of small torque if you ask me! :whistle: John.

[jrandom]

Feel free to torque about whatever turns your crank.

In fact, let's torque about Sachs, baby.

:hug:

[Big Dave]

Feel free to torque about whatever turns your crank.

In fact, let's torque about Sachs, baby.

:hug:

How sad - an Orbituary.

(Sachs had a theory of orbits or something)

[scumdog]

'Torque is what it's all about. You ride with Torque.' - Buell, E.

No, you WATCH 'Torque':dodge:

Well Chrissy-Bimbo and I did tonight - shite but fun in a Dukes of Hazzard kinda way.

[Big Dave]

No, you WATCH 'Torque':dodge:

Well Chrissy-Bimbo and I did tonight - shite but fun in a Dukes of Hazzard kinda way.

I saw the shorts. All I needed. :no:

[98tls]

I saw the shorts. All I needed. :no: :doh:shorts........how many times must SD have thought "if only i grabbed my shorts" that fateful night.

[Forest]

You haven't yet grokked electric motors?

Yes, their performance characteristics are quite something, particularly when compared with what one gets from the crude and inelegant idea of burning stuff and using the resulting gas pressure to push against pistons.

It's a pity that electric batteries have been one of the slowest-progressing technological areas over the last century.

But, yes, congratulations on being suckered in by technically-correct marketing spin.

Heck, an 883 Sportster's starter engine probably makes more torque than an 883 Sportster!

:laugh:

Yes batteries do suck (comparatively speaking).

Has anyone ever attempted a "combustion engine->generator->electric motor" system on a motorbike? Like they use on electric locomotives and large ships?

[henry]

D you regret mentioning it yet?

[Big Dave]

learned plenty.
mainly that I want a 1:1 scale slot car.
The puns (whilst admirable) I already had.

[Soul.Trader]

Yes batteries do suck (comparatively speaking).

Has anyone ever attempted a "combustion engine->generator->electric motor" system on a motorbike? Like they use on electric locomotives and large ships?

What would be the point? You'd have the worlds largest, heaviest motorbike, with enough torque to destroy a tyre in seconds, but which will be unable to do anything useful.

[madandy]

Torque, and anything else for that matter, is nothing without power.

Actually torque is everything. Power is nothing without torque and plenty rpm :bleh:

[Big Dave]

It depends how you ride.

Stretch likes the Std Rocket III better because it has 30 more ponies than the Tourer - I like the Tourer because it has about 10 more ft lbs.

[Bonez]

It depends how you ride.

Stretch likes the Std Rocket III better because it has 30 more ponies than the Tourer - I like the Tourer because it has about 10 more ft lbs.What was done to the motor to achive that difference Dave?

[_intense_]

Torque, and anything else for that matter, is nothing without power.

// blah blah blah nothing without control etc without skill etc without.....

and so on and so forth.
this spam fest could go on for ever. :girlfight:

[jrandom]

I like the Tourer because it has about 10 more ft lbs.

I like the Tourer because it comes out of the box with some goddamn nice-lookin' hard luggage, a screen that might let me button up my jacket collar without being choked in the wind, and a rear tyre that looks like it might actually allow one to go around corners.

Not that I've ridden one yet.

Does it, as I suspect, handle better than the standard model?

[Big Dave]

In the test I said:

'The Ed really likes the windscreen, I really like how easy it is to remove'.


I think it's just the tune. Like the old sprints and thunderbirds - they ramp 'em up or down on how they breathe, Cams and efi.

They don't nominate a compression ratio on any of the literature i have, might be too. I'll check.

[DMNTD]

I like the Tourer because it comes out of the box with some goddamn nice-lookin' hard luggage, a screen that might let me button up my jacket collar without being choked in the wind, and a rear tyre that looks like it might actually allow one to go around corners.

Not that I've ridden one yet.

Does it, as I suspect, handle better than the standard model?


I agree re hard luggage :cool:
The tourer is rumoured to handle better,yes however when we get the demo tourer next week(I believe it may be the same bike BD has pictured) I'll be able to tell you(my opinion).

[Bonez]

They don't nominate a compression ratio on any of the literature i have, might be too. I'll check.8.7:1

Max Power
140 hp @ 5750 rpm

Max Torque
200 Nm 147ft.lbf @ 2500 rpm

[Big Dave]

The Tourer is de-tuned to 106bhp @ 5400 rpm but makes up for it in increased torque.

The Cruiser produces 147ft.lbt of torque at 2,500 rpm whereas the Tourer develops maximum Torque of 154ft.lbf @ 2,025 rpm.

Power down thirty-four ponies – while torque is up – yes kids ‘up’ – seven of dem foot-pounds.

[Big Dave]

To quote the popular press:

the real difference is in the rear end. The Cruiser sports a quite massive 240/50 R 16 rear tyre while the Tourer is a more realworldly 180/70 R 16.

Not only does a 180 section save a chunk of cash when it comes to replacements – it also provides better cornering and overall handling.

[Big Dave]

I've also had a few instances of those 240 rear ends aquaplaning a bit. Love the way they look - but they do have some overhead.

[jrandom]

I've also had a few instances of those 240 rear ends aquaplaning a bit.

My rear ends only aquaplane on melted rubber.

Sometimes it's not easy being awesome.

[Forest]

What would be the point? You'd have the worlds largest, heaviest motorbike, with enough torque to destroy a tyre in seconds, but which will be unable to do anything useful.

I don't think it would be heavy. The combustion engine could be a small highly efficient design like a gas turbine. Coupled with some batteries or super-caps, the engine might not even have to run constantly.

Which means better fuel efficiency, less CO2 emissions, smoother running.

[Mikkel]

Well, if torque was indeed the only thing that mattered they'd be racing massey fergusons instead of F1 cars...


learned plenty.
mainly that I want a 1:1 scale slot car.
The puns (whilst admirable) I already had.

The problem with slot cars is that, in order to enter your driveway, you have to go fast enough around a corner that you'll flip the car. Is your drive way on a corner? If not you might have a bit of an issue here.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Actually torque is everything. Power is nothing without torque and plenty rpm :bleh:


Well, if torque was indeed the only thing that mattered they'd be racing massey fergusons instead of F1 cars...


HP claims win wanking competitions, torque wins races.

FACT.

[Edbear]

It depends how you ride.

Stretch likes the Std Rocket III better because it has 30 more ponies than the Tourer - I like the Tourer because it has about 10 more ft lbs.


The Tourer is de-tuned to 106bhp @ 5400 rpm but makes up for it in increased torque.

The Cruiser produces 147ft.lbt of torque at 2,500 rpm whereas the Tourer develops maximum Torque of 154ft.lbf @ 2,025 rpm.

Power down thirty-four ponies – while torque is up – yes kids ‘up’ – seven of dem foot-pounds.

With the performance this thing has, you'd have to test them back-to-back to notice the difference, surely. It's like saying the Gixxer thou has 2hp over the ZX10. When are you going to notice in the real world?

I notice the difference between my bike and the C90 as far as torque goes, but the only place my Bro-in-law had an advantage on the road was up a fairly steep hill with both of us two-up. In order to maintain the same pace, I was full throttle and he was about half throttle in top gear. I could have changed down of course, but I was testing the difference between our bikes. Outright performance was a lot closer than the engine sizes would indicate.

In the real world, on the road, I'd probably go for the tourer for better performance at anything other than "go-to-jail" speeds, but how much of a difference is it?

[Badjelly]

'Torque is what it's all about. You ride with Torque.' - Buell, E.
Bollocks - Badjelly (2008)

[Big Dave]

Bollocks - Badjelly (2008)

Yuh - like you can tell on a Scorpio.

[Big Dave]

In the real world, on the road, I'd probably go for the tourer for better performance at anything other than "go-to-jail" speeds, but how much of a difference is it?

It's not always about speed.

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/david_cohen_design/.Pictures/misc2/r3wheelie.jpg">

[Badjelly]

Yuh - like you can tell on a Scorpio.

It's faster than my Massey Ferguson!

[Big Dave]

It's faster than my Massey Ferguson!

Fastest bike over the eighth of a mile is the Rocket III. It has 40 less ponies than the Hyabusa.

[Edbear]

It's not always about speed.

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/david_cohen_design/.Pictures/misc2/r3wheelie.jpg">

That's basically what I mean. I prefer a good torque figure for the road, but also wonder if the difference between the two, considering the massive torque of the Rocket motor, was actually that noticeable?

[Badjelly]

Fastest bike over the eighth of a mile is the Rocket III. It has 40 less ponies than the Hayabusa.

Source please.

[Badjelly]

My objection to torque figures, in isolation, is that they take no account of the rev range over which the engine works, and hence the gearing required. To go back to the beginning of this thread, so a Rocket III starter motor has more torque than a Harley 883 engine, which do you think would give better on-road performance in your bike?

I have no quibble with the idea that big motors with broad power bands make for relaxed riding, if you like that sort of thing. I question the use of maximum torque as a measure of this.

And yes, Big Dave, my Scorpio doesn't have a great deal of torque or power or--let's face it--sex appeal. So obviously I am wrong and you are right.

[Big Dave]

Source please.


My own eyes.

And there is this You tube clip

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/N10raR2ADBE&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N10raR2ADBE&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Big Dave]

To go back to the beginning of this thread, so a Rocket III starter motor has more torque than a Harley 883 engine, which do you think would give better on-road performance in your bike?



The Rocket engine it's attached to.

[Big Dave]

That's basically what I mean. I prefer a good torque figure for the road, but also wonder if the difference between the two, considering the massive torque of the Rocket motor, was actually that noticeable?

Yup. It is.

[Edbear]

My own eyes.

And there is this You tube clip

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/N10raR2ADBE&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N10raR2ADBE&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Das' cool! Looks like the rider couldn't lift his foot back onto the peg due to the G-force!

[Mikkel]

HP claims win wanking competitions, torque wins races.

FACT.

Bullshit - otherwise you'd see turbo-diesel engines dominate the racing scene... Not only are they more torquey - they are more fuel efficient as well.

Balls and skills are what wins motorsport races - if those two are about equal between competitors, such as is the case for international professional, then the vehicle becomes important.


And I wouldn't be surprised to see a Rocket III beating most things on a 1/8 mile. The weight distribution and broad torque curve would allow you to get a lot of power down early - and that counts heaps in the drags.

[Big Dave]

Das' cool! Looks like the rider couldn't lift his foot back onto the peg due to the G-force!

Can't multi-task.

[Badjelly]

My objection to torque figures, in isolation, is that they take no account of the rev range over which the engine works, and hence the gearing required. To go back to the beginning of this thread, so a Rocket III starter motor has more torque than a Harley 883 engine, which do you think would give better on-road performance in your bike?


The Rocket engine it's attached to.

I rest my case, Your Honour.

[Big Dave]

Bullshit - otherwise you'd see turbo-diesel engines dominate the racing scene...

A V-rod is the US 1/4 mile champion. That is racing. Could be more people watch it than Moto GP too.

[Big Dave]

I rest my case, Your Honour.

Which was the point in the first place. If the starter has got that much....

[Badjelly]

Which was the point in the first place. If the starter has got that much....

All starters have got (almost) that much... They're high torque devices, but very low revs hence not very much power. So if you used them to drive a vehicle you'd need very high gearing, and all that lovely torque wouldn't actually give very much thrust at the back wheel. Just like a diesel car engine: big torque figures but not all that much go (Not like a Rocket III, I'm not denying they have heaps of usable power.)

[Big Dave]

All starters have got (almost) that much... T

I almost rest my case.

[imdying]

The fishing is good Dave :rofl:

I do wonder if perhaps the 1/8th mile time of the Rocket vs the Busa is more to do with the chassis though. That's a whole lotta motor convincing the front wheel to stay near the ground on the Rocket.

Me, I like the hard luggage on the new Tourer... but I love the crazy styling of the Rune, that'd be the one I'd want to try first :yes:

[Mikkel]

A V-rod is the US 1/4 mile champion. That is racing. Could be more people watch it than Moto GP too.

I dare assume that said V-rod is slightly modified - and that the introduction of a diesel engine is not one of these modifications...

I don't doubt that the drags have a lot of following, not at all. I'm certainly not saying that the drags aren't racing. Neither would I say that Nascar isn't racing. Mindnumbingly dull to watch maybe, but definitely still racing.

250 million Americans can't be wrong!

[Big Dave]

The fishing is good Dave :rofl:

I do wonder if perhaps the 1/8th mile time of the Rocket vs the Busa is more to do with the chassis though. That's a whole lotta motor convincing the front wheel to stay near the ground on the Rocket.

Me, I like the hard luggage on the new Tourer... but I love the crazy styling of the Rune, that'd be the one I'd want to try first :yes:

I love a spar on a monday morning.

Torque baby, torque.

[imdying]

I dare assume that said V-rod is slightly modified - and that the introduction of a diesel engine is not on of these modifications...Heh, you should google it... the modifications to that VRod, are not trival :lol:

[Mikkel]

Heh, you should google it... the modifications to that VRod, are not trival :lol:

I actually did try - but I was a bit lost for what search terms to throw at the old sniffer...

[imdying]

Well duh!! (http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=worlds+fastest+vrod&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)

[Mikkel]

Funny how that is - 'v-rod dragbike champion' certainly wasn't any help.

[Big Dave]

I watched it win the Nationals live on ESPN. Two weeks ago maybe. Beat a Suzuki - mainly on reaction time atchally.

[imdying]

Basically, it's a VRod with the crap scared out of it by a turbo (great torque builder as we know). There's a few stateside companies doing bolt on kits :yes:

[Mikkel]

Yeah, turbos only really provide torque, no power gain worth mentioning... :rolleyes:


But yeah, that's a great example of the boy-racers creed: 'If you throw enough money at a piece of shit you'll get a very fast piece of shit!'

And what's the deal with the Rossi leathers? :scratch: Last time I checked Rossi didn't ride a HD.

[imdying]

Yeah, turbos only really provide torque, no power gain worth mentioning... :rolleyes:I don't know what you mean? Turbos increase VE, which increases torque. Power is just a measurement of torque at a specified RPM, any measured power increases after fitting it is just a by product of the increased torque.

[Mikkel]

I don't know what you mean? Turbos increase VE, which increases torque. Power is just a measurement of torque at a specified RPM, any measured power increases after fitting it is just a by product of the increased torque.

That's exactly what I mean...

All this bogus talk about power vs. torque - you can not have power without torque, at least not from an internal combustion engine.

Whereas, you can have torque without power - in which case you're not going anywhere.

As such, if you want to go anywhere you want POWER. A torque vs. rpm graph contains exactly the same information as a power vs. rpm graph, albeit presented differently. A torque figure in and off itself doesn't say anything at all - a power figure on the other hand tells you more...

[Big Dave]

Me, I like the hard luggage on the new Tourer... but I love the crazy styling of the Rune, that'd be the one I'd want to try first :yes:

Rocket has a better surge, the Rune has longer legs.
Not much difference in the Road manners. Both go all right - particularly if you have the ballast to manhandle them.

Rune is my fave sounding bike. Rocket more practical.

[jrandom]

Bullshit - otherwise you'd see turbo-diesel engines dominate the racing scene...

Ahem, cough, cough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_R10), etc.

[Mikkel]

Ahem, cough, cough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_R10), etc.

Trust me, being a Dane and all, I could hardly have forgotten about Audi's Les Mans involvement. I'm sure the name Tom Kristensen would be familiar in this regard.

Mercedes also made a diesel car capable of 300+ km/h many many years ago - but the exact name and year eludes me right now.

Can we agree that it is the exception though?


Additionally, with Les Mans being an endurance race I'm sure we can agree that fuel-efficiency and reliability is that much more critical compared to say super-saloon or F1.

[FilthyLuka]

Trust me, being a Dane and all, I could hardly have forgotten about Audi's Les Mans involvement. I'm sure the name Tom Kristensen would be familiar in this regard.

Mercedes also made a diesel car capable of 300+ km/h many many years ago - but the exact name and year eludes me right now.

Can we agree that it is the exception though?

http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2006/06/19/neander-turbo-diesel-motorcycle/

"100hp and 144 foot pounds of torque at 2600rpm" Its not too bad, im sure you could squeez a few more ponies out

[xwhatsit]

I notice the difference between my bike and the C90 as far as torque goes, but the only place my Bro-in-law had an advantage on the road was up a fairly steep hill with both of us two-up. In order to maintain the same pace, I was full throttle and he was about half throttle in top gear. I could have changed down of course, but I was testing the difference between our bikes. Outright performance was a lot closer than the engine sizes would indicate.
Hmm, you always confuse me when you're talking about your bike. C50. And now you're saying your brother has a C90? I didn't know Cubs could carry pillions up hills?

[Big Dave]

Hmm, you always confuse me when you're talking about your bike. C50. And now you're saying your brother has a C90? I didn't know Cubs could carry pillions up hills?

Talka da cubic hinches.

[xwhatsit]

Talka da cubic hinches.
Still -- why name your big manly crusier after an ancient step-through?

Suppose you'll tell me now that Honda named their dirt bikes after Harleys.

[Mikkel]

http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2006/06/19/neander-turbo-diesel-motorcycle/

"100hp and 144 foot pounds of torque at 2600rpm" Its not too bad, im sure you could squeez a few more ponies out

Don't get me wrong, I don't see any issues with diesel engines being used for motorcycles - I'm actually quietly wondering why they indeed haven't become commonplace... They have the characteristic that a lot of people seems to be looking for in a bike - good low down torque. ...and it's more efficient than a V-twin. :devil2:

Also, you have to wonder why there, bar a few notable exceptions, hasn't been any diesel engines use in professional racing. (not counting disciplines such as truck racing)

[Ixion]

.. I didn't know C50/C90 s could carry pillions up hills?

Oh yes, definately so. Slowly, to be sure, but that's to be expected from such a type of bike. Actually, down hills is trickier, given the rather dubious brakes.

[imdying]

it's more efficient than a V-twin. :devil2:That doesn't make sense... what about a V-twin diesel?

[Big Dave]

Still -- why name your big manly crusier after an ancient step-through?

Suppose you'll tell me now that Honda named their dirt bikes after Harleys.


I prefer the ZZZZZCBR-XXXXXXXXZXZ

[Mikkel]

That doesn't make sense... what about a V-twin diesel?

Ah yes, I forgot about those. :doh: :rolleyes:


I prefer the ZZZZZCBR-XXXXXXXXZXZ

That's not a fast bike - there's only one R...

[xwhatsit]

Oh yes, definately so. Slowly, to be sure, but that's to be expected from such a type of bike. Actually, down hills is trickier, given the rather dubious brakes.
Ah. That'd be because of torque I suppose. Torque -- provided by the 1st gear reduction -- but slowly, because of the lack of horsepower (only about 4hp).

And that's where your silly torque-is-everything argument falls down.

[Big Dave]

A
That's not a fast bike - there's only one R...

We only mention them on talk like a pirate day.

[Edbear]

Hmm, you always confuse me when you're talking about your bike. C50. And now you're saying your brother has a C90? I didn't know Cubs could carry pillions up hills?


Oh yes, definately so. Slowly, to be sure, but that's to be expected from such a type of bike. Actually, down hills is trickier, given the rather dubious brakes.

I took my bike licence test on a friend's C90 stepthru and as part of the test I had to do a hill start.... Well it couldn't and I actually had to push it up the small hill and I was a very skinny kid at the time...

[Crasherfromwayback]

Bullshit - otherwise you'd see turbo-diesel engines dominate the racing scene... Not only are they more torquey - they are more fuel efficient as well.

Balls and skills are what wins motorsport races - if those two are about equal between competitors, such as is the case for international professional, then the vehicle becomes important.


And I wouldn't be surprised to see a Rocket III beating most things on a 1/8 mile. The weight distribution and broad torque curve would allow you to get a lot of power down early - and that counts heaps in the drags.

You obviously know as much about racing as you do torque.

'Torque' allows you to drive out of a corner faster. You then carry more speed down the straights. This is turn, allows you to produce better lap times. Better lap times than the people you're racing allows you to win said race.

Drag racing is all about getting off the line better than the person you're racing. Torque allows you to do this. Much like road racing. And come to think of it...Moto-X.


Yeah, turbos only really provide torque, no power gain worth mentioning... :rolleyes:


And there you have it. F1 cars (as you've mentioned) used to be turbo charged. They got too fast.


That's exactly what I mean...

All this bogus talk about power vs. torque - you can not have power without torque, at least not from an internal combustion engine.

Whereas, you can have torque without power - in which case you're not going anywhere.

As such, if you want to go anywhere you want POWER. A torque vs. rpm graph contains exactly the same information as a power vs. rpm graph, albeit presented differently. A torque figure in and off itself doesn't say anything at all - a power figure on the other hand tells you more...

100% BULLSHIT.


Trust me, being a Dane and all, I could hardly have forgotten about Audi's Les Mans involvement. I'm sure the name Tom Kristensen would be familiar in this regard.

Mercedes also made a diesel car capable of 300+ km/h many many years ago - but the exact name and year eludes me right now.

Can we agree that it is the exception though?


Additionally, with Les Mans being an endurance race I'm sure we can agree that fuel-efficiency and reliability is that much more critical compared to say super-saloon or F1.

[QUOTE=Mikkel;1569608]Don't get me wrong, I don't see any issues with diesel engines being used for motorcycles - I'm actually quietly wondering why they indeed haven't become commonplace... They have the characteristic that a lot of people seems to be looking for in a bike - good low down torque. ...and it's more efficient than a V-twin. :devil2:
/QUOTE]

The weight a diesel engine must weight makes it a difficult proposition for a bike. See answer #1.

[Badjelly]

All this bogus talk about power vs. torque - you can not have power without torque, at least not from an internal combustion engine.

Whereas, you can have torque without power - in which case you're not going anywhere.

As such, if you want to go anywhere you want POWER. A torque vs. rpm graph contains exactly the same information as a power vs. rpm graph, albeit presented differently. A torque figure in and off itself doesn't say anything at all - a power figure on the other hand tells you more...



100% BULLSHIT.


In my opinion, what Mikkel said is 0% bullshit.

Perhaps if you could be more specific about what you disagree with we could get somewhere?

[Crasherfromwayback]

In my opinion, what Mikkel said is 0% bullshit.

Perhaps if you could be more specific about what you disagree with we could get somewhere?

Sure. If you read my posts on the matter, you'll see that I think what Mikkel said regarding 'torgue' is 100% bullshit. This (my opinion and why) is also explained. I've formed my opinion through being reasonably mechanically inclinded, and having raced all sorts of bikes/disiplines over many years.

How and why do your form your judgement?

[Badjelly]

Sure. If you read my posts on the matter, you'll see that I think what Mikkel said regarding 'torgue' is 100% bullshit. This (my opinion and why) is also explained. I've formed my opinion through being reasonably mechanically inclined, and having raced all sorts of bikes/disciplines over many years.

How and why do your form your judgement?

OK, so do you disagree with this?

A torque vs. rpm graph contains exactly the same information as a power vs. rpm graph, albeit presented differently.

[avgas]

What gets me is that the sales hype for new bikes state that it produces XXX Nm of torque at idle.
Yet they don't state this for all those 'mobility scooters' out there.
I think they are trying to appeal to the wrong market - the rest of us never ride at idle.

[Big Dave]

Be that as it may - A road bike with lower power and more torque is better than a road bike with big power and low torque.

[Crasherfromwayback]

OK, so do you disagree with this?

A torque vs. rpm graph contains exactly the same information as a power vs. rpm graph, albeit presented differently.

Of course a torque vs rpm and an HP vs rpm graph contain exactly the same info. They're both relative, and are both showing when and where max output occures in the rev range.

What I said was 'torque' wins races, HP claims are wank fuel.

Have you not ever noticed how the guys riding the GP bikes all want better 'drive' out of the corners?

Why? So they can do better lap times. TORQUE.

[Thunder 8]

Be that as it may - A road bike with lower power and more torque is better than a road bike with big power and low torque.
Have to agree with that as im riding with approx 300 ftlbs of torque......twist and go.....heh heh sorry couldnt help myself.

[avgas]

Can we agree that it is the exception though?
Nope - banned or not developed in the right areas is how i feel about diesels.
They were told they couldn't race in the BTCC.
Bikes only got non-performance diesels.
Trucks and BF-vehicles get some of the high horsepower stuff.
Saying the diesels are non-performance clappers is like saying the only good 2-strokes are in vespas.
2-stroke turbo diesels are nuts, make turbine engines feel like they are a waste of time....

[avgas]

Be that as it may - A road bike with lower power and more torque is better than a road bike with big power and low torque.
Actually its when the curves match where you get the real fun. Dont believe me go get on a thumper with a 20kph sprocket. Wheels goes up, you change gears wheel goes down, then repeat. Likewise the opposite - i call it CBR250itist.
haha

[Mikkel]

'Torque' allows you to drive out of a corner faster. You then carry more speed down the straights. This is turn, allows you to produce better lap times. Better lap times than the people you're racing allows you to win said race.

For a given engine operating at a certain speed (RPM) the following is true: More torque -> more power.

I hope we can at least agree on that!

The only way to produce more power without more torque is by moving up the redline.

If all that mattered was torque I believe we should see more singles in the motoGP and superbike fields.

For roadracing, engines are engineered and tuned for maximum power. True enough, to achieve this you have to maximise this you'll have to match your torque curve so that you have your peak torque in upper part of the RPM range. If this was not the case you would see quite different engines with quite different stroke/bore ratios!


And there you have it. F1 cars (as you've mentioned) used to be turbo charged. They got too fast.

Indeed they got so fast that they became too dangerous for the organisation to stomach... But turbos increase power by increasing torque. HINT: I'm not arguing that more torque is a bad thing - only that it's not the torque figure that is important, it's the power output that matters. However, you can not have power without torque. (Did you read that bit or did you just quote it?)


100% BULLSHIT.

Finally a good argument, could you provide any references?


In my opinion, what Mikkel said is 0% bullshit.

Perhaps if you could be more specific about what you disagree with we could get somewhere?

Thanks mate, but I doubt KB is the right forum for a sober debate on just about anything...


Be that as it may - A road bike with lower power and more torque is better than a road bike with big power and low torque.

No, it's a slower road bike that requires less work to ride. It's not a race bike though.


Of course a torque vs rpm and an HP vs rpm graph contain exactly the same info. They're both relative, and are both showing when and where max output occures in the rev range.

Well, there's supposedly a scale on the y-axis of said graphs. As such you should hopefully be able to extract some quantitative information from said graphs - they are not relative...

Torque is the derivative of power with regards to engine speed. As such the torque curve will tell you where the power increase as you increase your engine speed is the highest. Or where you'll accelerate the fastest when you crank the throttle.

We don't care too much about the torque since we use gearing to adjust it up or down as is convenient. We can not adjust the power in the same way - what is there is all we have to work with, no matter how fast we are moving.


What I said was 'torque' wins races, HP claims are wank fuel.

Have you not ever noticed how the guys riding the GP bikes all want better 'drive' out of the corners?

Why? So they can do better lap times. TORQUE.

True enough, there's a lot of wanking going on about power figures. However, the reasons for the factories to stop publishing power figures is that a power figure can lie - having the highest peak power does not make for the most enjoyable bike. Indeed if the peak is too narrow it won't even be a fast bike (as in acceleration).

However, the argument that you present above is rather flawed. Saying that torque gives better lap times because it gives more drive out of the corners without reference is hardly debating the subject.

Let me put this question to you then, consider:
Engine A - redlines at 5,000 RPM puts out a massive 400 Nm at 2,500 RPM and maintains that torque until redline.
Engine B - redlines at 20,000 RPM, puts out 100 Nm at 10,000 RPM and maintains that torque until redline.
Which engine is faster?


Nope - banned or not developed in the right areas is how i feel about diesels.
They were told they couldn't race in the BTCC.
Bikes only got non-performance diesels.
Trucks and BF-vehicles get some of the high horsepower stuff.
Saying the diesels are non-performance clappers is like saying the only good 2-strokes are in vespas.
2-stroke turbo diesels are nuts, make turbine engines feel like they are a waste of time....

That's a bloody shame really! I wonder why they have made that call...

[madandy]

Wow! escalated into another HP v's Torque 'debate' it did.
I love HP :) you CANNOT get high HP with out having high TORQUE at high RPM. Relative to the actual figures that is.
in 2005 an aussie car mag tested a 2L TDI mk5 Golf v's a 2L FSI petrol mk5 Golf. the gas car had 110kw @ about 5000 rpm and 200NM @ about 3000rpm the Diesel 103Kw at about 3500rpm and 320Nm @ 1800rpm.
The diesel car, despite being 40 odd kg heavier than its petrol powered sibling, trounced the petrol car in feats of accelleration 0-100, 0-400m, 80-120, every where... More torque and slightly less HPwon that race. Hmmm.

A mate has a mid '90's ZX6R and riding up a hill in top or even a gear down my bike destroys his. By the time he finds 3rd and gets his low(er) torque at high(er) rpm engine into its best rpm range I am long gone. :D
Now if you ride around in a low gear at 7-8000rpm you have all the engine performance at your disposal...and you're also gonna meet Bubba in the showers real soon.
Sure that ZX6R will kill my Duke in outright pace but it'll have to be wrung out to do that and I see plenty of evidence to suggest that experienced, mature and responsible riders tend to prefer loads of mid range torque over absolute HP...
GSXR1000 (for example) has loads of torque and can keep making =strong torque opnce the rpm goes into double digits...bikes like that are a great balance of torque and power - for those responsible enough.

I think some here are only looking at the peak figures rather than the area 'under the curve' and also talkin absolutes where some here are talking real world and that's where most of the confusion or failure to agree stems from...are we arguing semantics?

HP is great, but the greatest rush comes from high torque and an engine that can keep on making high torque as the tacho winds round into the FUN ZONE :D
Whatever you ride, it's torque that turns ya wheels :D
hp is a number calculated from measure torque at x rpm and relates to an engines' cylinder heads ability to breathe at increasing rpm...you're clever, you know the equation ;)

[Badjelly]

Of course a torque vs rpm and an HP vs rpm graph contain exactly the same info. They're both relative, and are both showing when and where max output occurs in the rev range.

F**k this is frustrating. You're a rider and a racer and you know that "torquey" engines get you out of corners. I don't disagree with that (and neither, I think, does Troy Bayliss). But Mikkel and I have a background in science and engineering--geeks, basically--and are trying to get across something about the technical meaning of the word torque.

Let me put it this way: Imagine two hypothetical engines, both weigh the same, both develop the same maximum power and both have power curves of exactly the same shape. But one has max power at 6000 rpm (call this a petrol engine, if you like) and the other has max power at 3000 rpm (call this a diesel engine if you like). Now, the maximum torque of the second (diesel) engine will be twice the maximum torque of the first (petrol). Assume that when you put these engines in a vehicle you give the diesel engine gear ratios that are taller by a factor of exactly 2. And this will exactly compensate for its higher torque. The result is that in any gear at any speed, the maximum force the engine can exert on the road will be the same. So the two engines will have the same performance and will feel equally "torquey".

So what I'm suggesting is that the word "torque" has two meanings. One is the technical one and the other is the popular one and it really means "flexible power delivery". There's endless scope for confusing the two. (And manufacturers of diesel engines like to exploit this confusion.)

[Badjelly]

Thanks, madandy. No I'm not arguing semantics, I'm trying to clarify semantics to short-circuit the argument.

[imdying]

I love HP :) you CANNOT get high HP with out having high TORQUE at high RPM.Of course you can... whatever you've got in mind, half the torque and double the RPM. Same high HP figure that you were thinking of, from 'low' torque.

[madandy]

F**k this is frustrating. You're a rider and a racer and you know that "torquey" engines get you out of corners. I don't disagree with that (and neither, I think, does Troy Bayliss). But Mikkel and I have a background in science and engineering--geeks, basically--and are trying to get across something about the technical meaning of the word torque.

Let me put it this way: Imagine two hypothetical engines, both weigh the same, both develop the same maximum power and both have power curves of exactly the same shape. But one has max power at 6000 rpm (call this a petrol engine, if you like) and the other has max power at 3000 rpm (call this a diesel engine if you like). Now, the maximum torque of the second (diesel) engine will be twice the maximum torque of the first (petrol). Assume that when you put these engines in a vehicle you give the diesel engine gear ratios that are taller by a factor of exactly 2. And this will exactly compensate for its higher torque. The result is that in any gear at any speed, the maximum force the engine can exert on the road will be the same. So the two engines will have the same performance and will feel equally "torquey".

So what I'm suggesting is that the word "torque" has two meanings. One is the technical one and the other is the popular one and it really means "flexible power delivery". There's endless scope for confusing the two. (And manufacturers of diesel engines like to exploit this confusion.)

So you read my post? ABout the diesel golf thrashing the petrol golf?
You technical guys are always right - like teachers.
We know what torque is...I don't beleive anyone was arguing the precise, intellectual, factual deffinition of torque. Rather that a 'torquey' bike is sooo much cooler than some screaming fucking banshee wailing it's way around the tacho, bent over the tank trying to get past the top gear rolling hill destroying grunt machine ridden by the guy with a great big grin on his face :headbang:

haha

[Big Dave]

No, it's a slower road bike that requires less work to ride. It's not a race bike though.


What part of 'a road bike' did you miss?

[Badjelly]

Torque is the derivative of power with regards to engine speed.

Er, no. It's the power divided by the engine speed. The same units, but not the same thing.

[Badjelly]

So you read my post? About the diesel golf thrashing the petrol golf?

Yes, but only after I wrote my post.

My hypothetical diesel has exactly the same-shaped power curve as my hypothetical petrol engine. I'm not sure that this applies to your Golfs.

[imdying]

I don't beleive anyone was arguing the precise, intellectual, factual deffinition of torque. Rather that a 'torquey' bike is sooo much cooler than some screaming fucking banshee wailing it's way around the tacho, bent over the tank trying to get past the top gear rolling hill destroying grunt machine ridden by the guy with a great big grin on his faceYou can't argue that... it's subjective tripe.

I've got two bikes, one a screaming banshee, and the other a vtwin thou... which one is better and gives better grins depends on:
- The weather
- What mood I'm in
- Who I'm riding with
- The direction of the wind
- What time the moon rises
- etc etc etc

Neither is 'better' or 'gives a bigger grin'. They're both good, and both give big grins. Anyone that thinks only a motorcycle with large amounts of torque low torque can give big grins is deluded.

[Badjelly]

You technical guys are always right - like teachers.

Thank you :rolleyes:

[madandy]

Of course you can... whatever you've got in mind, half the torque and double the RPM. Same high HP figure that you were thinking of, from 'low' torque.

You ommitted the second sentence: "Relative to the actual figures that is."
I'm well aware of the rpm factor :)
Just sold my banshee GSXR750 and have the Duke...gixxer aint half the road bike the twin is but I agree with yuo wholeheartedly than in certain situations the banshee is one hell of a ride - when you're in total HOON mode :devil2:

[madandy]

Yes, but only after I wrote my post.

My hypothetical diesel has exactly the same-shaped power curve as my hypothetical petrol engine. I'm not sure that this applies to your Golfs.

Fair enough.
Which real world engines would it apply to?

[Big Dave]

You can't argue that... it's subjective tripe.

Bike A: a ROAD bike with 100hp and 50 ft lbs (just pretend numbers for eg)

Bike B: 160 hp and 50 ft lbs

I'm taking the bike A every time.

I know where bike B develops that power and at what speed and know I won't be using it long. It turns to a whole mess of red and blue.

Torque is much better.

[Mikkel]

What part of 'a road bike' did you miss?

If you re-read it you'll see I didn't miss it at all. I just pointed out that it wasn't a racebike, and the reason for me doing so, was that when we start talking perfomance figures we'll inevitably edge towards racing as well.


Er, no. It's the power divided by the engine speed. The same units, but not the same thing.

Pardon the technobabble - ignore the following unless you appreciate such things, please.

Define k as the constant that makes the following equation

P = T*R/k

specify the relationship between power, P, torque, T, and angular frequency, R - for a given set of units. Then the following is true:

dP/dR = T/k

Choose your units so k = 1 and torque is indeed the derivative of power with regards to engine speed.

Would you not agree?


And the diesel golf vs. the petrol golf is irrelevant... VWs are crap!

[Ixion]

Bike A: a ROAD bike with 100hp and 50 ft lbs (just pretend numbers for eg)

Bike B: 160 hp and 50 ft lbs

I'm taking the bike A every time.

I know where bike B develops that power and at what speed and know I won't be using it long. It turns to a whole mess of red and blue.

Torque is much better.

On that basis, you want a side valve.

[Big Dave]

On that basis, you want a side valve.

I don't want to go to 1935 to get it!

[Ixion]

Side valve bikes is still being made. Trade in the Triumph.

[madandy]

If you re-read it you'll see I didn't miss it at all. I just pointed out that it wasn't a racebike, and the reason for me doing so, was that when we start talking perfomance figures we'll inevitably edge towards racing as well.



Pardon the technobabble - ignore the following unless you appreciate such things, please.

Define k as the constant that makes the following equation

P = T*R/k

specify the relationship between power, P, torque, T, and angular frequency, R - for a given set of units. Then the following is true:

dP/dR = T/k

Choose your units so k = 1 and torque is indeed the derivative of power with regards to engine speed.

Would you not agree?


And the diesel golf vs. the petrol golf is irrelevant... VWs are crap!

Used a Dyno? They measure torque. I don't understand that stuff you wrote above...I just think you're trying to be too clever now. :bleh:

Reading back a page or so you techno guys started this whole thing! us luddites were simply enjoying some solid torque about a preferred riding style and engine type. We know what power is all about :yes::Police:

PS: quatify the VW's are crap statement....it makes less sense to dismiss the fact that a diesel beat a petrol in a fair fight just because they are VW's than anything us dumb cunts have stated.

[jrandom]

Bike A: a ROAD bike with 100hp and 50 ft lbs

Or you could pick a GSX1400 - 100hp and 88 ft lbs.

:niceone:

[Big Dave]

and a big fat arse. :-P I like skinny bikes. With Torque.

[Mikkel]

Used a Dyno? They measure torque. I don't understand that stuff you wrote above...I just think you're trying to be too clever now. :bleh:

As I wrote, that was technobabble about a specific point - no attempts to be clever at all.

I haven't studied dynos much - just read this page (http://www.dyno-dynamometer.com/how_dyno_works.htm) right now (pretty interesting IMHO). And I can see what you mean that the dyno measures the torque. However, you need to measure the engine speed as well - and thus the power is given.

However, it is important to note that the purpose of a dyno is not to quantify the torque - it is to quantify the power output. I think that alone is a valid argument!


PS: quatify the VW's are crap statement....it makes less sense to dismiss the fact that a diesel beat a petrol in a fair fight just because they are VW's than anything us dumb cunts have stated.

Nah, I was stating my personal opinion there. I couldn't care less if a diesel or a petrol golf was faster... since I'd never own one.
But you say the fight was fair - in order to refute that claim I would have to know quite a bit more about how the test was made. A scooter will beat a ferrari in an urban environment - it doesn't make the scooter faster than a ferrari though. And yes, I am aware that these two cars are very much more similar than that - but if the test favoured the strengths of one over the other by only a tiny margin then that would make a difference. Personally I would expect that the diesel would be better in most situations, but slightly slower on a track - but I'd have to see the power curves before I'd put money either way.

[madandy]

As I wrote, that was technobabble about a specific point - no attempts to be clever at all.

I haven't studied dynos much - just read this page (http://www.dyno-dynamometer.com/how_dyno_works.htm) right now (pretty interesting IMHO). And I can see what you mean that the dyno measures the torque. However, you need to measure the engine speed as well - and thus the power is given.

However, it is important to note that the purpose of a dyno is not to quantify the torque - it is to quantify the power output. I think that alone is a valid argument!


The race engine builders and all the 'tuners' I know use dynos to tune their engines...They don not focus on the peak HP figure. They tune to create the best possible torque curve. Their cylinder heads breathe well, which leads to good hp but they focus on strong torque as peaky engines tend to suck on race circuits and on gravel. And they win.
The people that focus on peak HP on a dyno are commonly known withinh the performance engine building industry as 'Dyno Queens' :sunny:

Look I'm not saying the numbers are wrong but theory seldom works in the real world where people have to be taken into account.

[madandy]

As for the Golfs. The accelleration testing was conducted at Oran park race track. And on a Drag strip, against proper timing equipment.
Interestingly the FSI has 83kw/tonne v's 76kw/tonne for the TDI.
All the previous discussion has been about straightline accelleration. Take some bends into account and it becomes so variable doesn't it. The heavier nose of the diesel would, I expect handicap the TDI around bends, eventually overheating the front tyres and handing victory to the slightly better handling FSI - then suspension tuning & all that comes into it. 0-140km/h took 18.7sec in the FSI and 15.9 in the TDI.

I've had a lot of cars, some good some very good and some crap. I'll let you know what I think of the MK4 GTi when mine arrives in a few weeks :)

[Mikkel]

The race engine builders and all the 'tuners' I know use dynos to tune their engines...They don not focus on the peak HP figure. They tune to create the best possible torque curve. Their cylinder heads breathe well, which leads to good hp but they focus on strong torque as peaky engines tend to suck on race circuits and on gravel. And they win.
The people that focus on peak HP on a dyno are commonly known withinh the performance engine building industry as 'Dyno Queens' :sunny:

Look I'm not saying the numbers are wrong but theory seldom works in the real world where people have to be taken into account.

I don't dispute that optimising your torque will give you a better engine for racing. But you're optimising it to provide the optimal power delivery - and by that I don't mean the highest peak power but instead a nice and predictable power-band that matches your gearing, setup, riding style, etc.

I already stated in an earlier post that peak-power doesn't make for a nice ride if the peak is too narrow. On the other hand - loosing power by tuning your engine to have a power-band wider than what is optimal for your gear box is equally wasteful (for racing - it's nice for the road I'm sure).

I'm not arguing for numbers or anything like that. I'm not trying to drag this down into technobabble. All I am saying is that arguments like 'torque is what makes the bike go fast', 'torque is all that matters', 'torque is what puts a grin on your face', etc ad nauseum are turning things on their head and, to me, appears as an obstacle preventing people from understanding how stuff actually works. It's reverse causality so to speak - no different than saying gravity exists because things fall down.

[Mikkel]

As for the Golfs. The accelleration testing was conducted at Oran park race track. And on a Drag strip, against proper timing equipment.
Interestingly the FSI has 83kw/tonne v's 76kw/tonne for the TDI.
All the previous discussion has been about straightline accelleration. Take some bends into account and it becomes so variable doesn't it. The heavier nose of the diesel would, I expect handicap the TDI around bends, eventually overheating the front tyres and handing victory to the slightly better handling FSI - then suspension tuning & all that comes into it. 0-140km/h took 18.7sec in the FSI and 15.9 in the TDI.

Interesting. I'm wondering what the top speed of these cars are. How about the 100-180 km/h segment and such?

Most family cars, being designed with fuel efficiency as a prime concern, will have a gearing that favours cruising (i.e. too tall). As such the diesel would have an advantage as it, most likely, develops more torque earlier.


I've had a lot of cars, some good some very good and some crap. I'll let you know what I think of the MK4 GTi when mine arrives in a few weeks :)

Aw mate, I feel so sorry for ya! ;) Hopefully they've sorted out the suspension since the late 80s - otherwise you'll be stuck with something that goes around corners like an overladen shopping trolley :p

I reckon the GTi should be interesting enough - they have supposedly sorted it out and returned to some of the virtues they forgot about with the Mk3s. My main beef with VW is that I find them too expensive compared to what you get - I'd go BMW or Audi if I was thinking about buying a german car and couldn't afford a Porshe :yes: They are however german quality and are not likely to disappoint.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Bullshit - otherwise you'd see turbo-diesel engines dominate the racing scene... Not only are they more torquey - they are more fuel efficient as well.

Balls and skills are what wins motorsport races - if those two are about equal between competitors, such as is the case for international professional, then the vehicle becomes important.


Not bullshit. I stated torque wins races. It does. Fact.


As I wrote, that was technobabble about a specific point - no attempts to be clever at all.

I haven't studied dynos much - just read this page (http://www.dyno-dynamometer.com/how_dyno_works.htm) right now (pretty interesting IMHO). And I can see what you mean that the dyno measures the torque. However, you need to measure the engine speed as well - and thus the power is given.

However, it is important to note that the purpose of a dyno is not to quantify the torque - it is to quantify the power output. I think that alone is a valid argument!

Any race tuner worth his bladder weight is looking for torque, not peak HP.

We have one of the best dynos in the Southern Hemisphere, and we never chase peak HP numbers.

Nah, I was stating my personal opinion there. I couldn't care less if a diesel or a petrol golf was faster... since I'd never own one.
But you say the fight was fair - in order to refute that claim I would have to know quite a bit more about how the test was made. A scooter will beat a ferrari in an urban environment - it doesn't make the scooter faster than a ferrari though. And yes, I am aware that these two cars are very much more similar than that - but if the test favoured the strengths of one over the other by only a tiny margin then that would make a difference. Personally I would expect that the diesel would be better in most situations, but slightly slower on a track - but I'd have to see the power curves before I'd put money either way.


I don't dispute that optimising your torque will give you a better engine for racing.

Yes you did. And you're wrong. Full of shit in fact. All talk. No torque.

[Big Dave]

keep it polite you wankers.

[Mikkel]

Not bullshit. I stated torque wins races. It does. Fact

Yes you did. And you're wrong. Full of shit in fact. All talk. No torque.

I'm so glad we had this debate. You have given me so much to think about.

[Big Dave]

It's a BD thread - SPAAAAARTAAA

[madandy]

Interesting. I'm wondering what the top speed of these cars are. How about the 100-180 km/h segment and such?

Most family cars, being designed with fuel efficiency as a prime concern, will have a gearing that favours cruising (i.e. too tall). As such the diesel would have an advantage as it, most likely, develops more torque earlier.



Aw mate, I feel so sorry for ya! ;) Hopefully they've sorted out the suspension since the late 80s - otherwise you'll be stuck with something that goes around corners like an overladen shopping trolley :p

I reckon the GTi should be interesting enough - they have supposedly sorted it out and returned to some of the virtues they forgot about with the Mk3s. My main beef with VW is that I find them too expensive compared to what you get - I'd go BMW or Audi if I was thinking about buying a german car and couldn't afford a Porshe :yes: They are however german quality and are not likely to disappoint.

I don't think the back straight was long enough for those slugs to attain any higher top speed, from rest!
Had a BMW. NOt that well assembled TBO.
It's PORSCHE you phillistine! :P

[Big Dave]

Random - does this mean that you have both an R1 and a GSX1400 currently?

[Mikkel]

I don't think the back straight was long enough for those slugs to attain any higher top speed, from rest!
Which kinda brings us back to my first comment regarding golfs...


Had a BMW. NOt that well assembled TBO.
Which year?

It's PORSCHE you phillistine! :P

I actually thought it was Porsche ;), but yeah I missed the c :(

[jrandom]

Random - does this mean that you have both an R1 and a GSX1400 currently?

Nah, I just threw the GSX1400 down the road and cooked up some bullshit story about a diesel spill to cover for the fact that I can't ride, then bribed kiwifruit to lend me his Yamahahaha for a month or two while parts are sent by slow boat from Japan.

:niceone:

[Big Dave]

Nah, I just threw the GSX1400 down the road and cooked up some bullshit story about a diesel spill to cover for the fact that I can't ride, then bribed kiwifruit to lend me his Yamahahaha for a month or two while parts are sent by slow boat from Japan.

:niceone:

Compré - Good luck with the self control thing.

[jrandom]

self control

That's something that people without R1s have.

Right?

:D

Edit: Actually, you might be surprised at how quickly Super Corsas in the rain teach one self-control.

Then again, you probably wouldn't be surprised.

I have a pair of Pilot Power 2CTs on order; they won't arrive soon enough.

:sweatdrop

[Forest]

Fastest bike over the eighth of a mile is the Rocket III. It has 40 less ponies than the Hyabusa.

Interesting. I would have thought the MT-01 would be a contender for that title.

[jrandom]

Interesting. I would have thought the MT-01 would be a contender for that title.

No way, man, that shit's all cruiser-engined and suchlike.

[avgas]

Not bullshit. I stated torque wins races. It does. Fact.
tell that to the RS125 Paeroa winner.
riders win races.
Bikes just make it easier.
Just like a good blender wont make me dinner.


Well reading this whole thread is a rather funny pissing match. I'd rather laugh a little and stay out of it. It all gets messed up for you students types when you change it all to Matrix form and try to put a controller on it.
Gets even worse when a PI+D doesn't exist in the real world. So for now believe that the power vs torque argument is valid, the world is round, electrons flow from positive to negative and Helen Clark is a women.

[imdying]

I know where bike B develops that power and at what speed and know I won't be using it long. It turns to a whole mess of red and blue.

Torque is much better.I disagree. But not because you're wrong, it's your opinion after all, but because until I open the garage up and sniff the air, scratch my backside, whatever, I don't know which bike I'd rather be riding. Some (hung over) days I want the slugger, some (trippin on acid) days I want something more engaging :)

[Mikkel]

They say a picture speaks more than a thousand words.

So here are a couple of examples...

Torque: http://dontclickthis.whatingods.name/absurd-house.jpg

Power: http://dontclickthis.whatingods.name/a-bomb-large.jpg

[madandy]

Which kinda brings us back to my first comment regarding golfs...

A fine, in fact the quintessential 'Hot Hatch' in MkI & MkII guise. Boat like in MkIII drag and a grown up compact as MkIV & V versions. No race car but a fine blend, especially when you own a bike to get yer kicks :scooter:

Which year?

1998 E36 328iM


I actually thought it was Porsche ;), but yeah I missed the c :(

That nuke pic is more like the Torquiest bike on earth, tuned up with fancy pants head(s) & a perfect bottom end to sustain crazy high rpm, running on NOS, Turbo, alcohol and more...It kills all within a several mile radius and the aftermath can last centuries.

[fridayflash]

Says the guy on a pea green Suzuki.
too right mr cohen,those new tourers are absolute beauty in motion!

[avgas]

Interesting. I'm wondering what the top speed of these cars are. How about the 100-180 km/h segment and such?
Audi A4 (tdi) does 230 fine on the autobahn according to my suppliers there.
Sisters TDI camry did 200kph and that car was like 20 years old.
The issue with Diesels is actually their core principal. No Spark.
Glow plugs do not like changes in revs. But i hear that alot of this has been solved now with 'developments in technology'.

[Forest]

No way, man, that shit's all cruiser-engined and suchlike.

Here's what I found on the web.

MT-01
dry weight = 243kg
max torque = 150.3Nm @ 3,750 rpm
max power = 66.3kW @ 4,750 rpm

Rocket III
dry weight = 302kg
max torque = 200Nm @ 2,500 rpm
max power = 100kW @ 6,000 rpm

[Badjelly]

MT-01
dry weight = 243kg
max torque = 150.3Nm @ 3,750 rpm
max power = 66.3kW @ 4,750 rpm

Rocket III
dry weight = 302kg
max torque = 200Nm @ 2,500 rpm
max power = 100kW @ 6,000 rpm

6000 rpm? Way too high. That MT01 sounds like a real tractor. Big Dave will love it.

[Big Dave]

6000 rpm? Way too high. That MT01 sounds like a real tractor. Big Dave will love it.

Actually I though the V-max was overrated.

[Forest]

I forgot to mention that (at today's prices) the MT-01 is around ten grand cheaper than the Rocket III.

Sounds good to me :)

[madandy]

Audi A4 (tdi) does 230 fine on the autobahn according to my suppliers there.
Sisters TDI camry did 200kph and that car was like 20 years old.
The issue with Diesels is actually their core principal. No Spark.
Glow plugs do not like changes in revs. But i hear that alot of this has been solved now with 'developments in technology'.

Glow plugs operate at zero rpm. IE: before start-up. Dey is call compression ignition because the heat generated from such high compression is sufficient to ignite the diesel(flash pint approx. 60 deg C) and burn the energy outta oxygen.
Glow plugs heat the combustion chamber to facilitate initial ignition only.

The true core issue with compression ignition engines, as mentioned on an earlier post and as I see it is the sheer mass of the moving parts, made necessary by the stresses of operating such a high compression ratio and also the durability engineered into them - in the past anyway.

[Mikkel]

A fine, in fact the quintessential 'Hot Hatch' in MkI & MkII guise. Boat like in MkIII drag and a grown up compact as MkIV & V versions. No race car but a fine blend, especially when you own a bike to get yer kicks

Indeed, I like the GT-B because it's practical as well. A bit thirsty though :(
However, as far as kicks goes - a bit too round around the corners with the 4WD and all...


1998 E36 328iM

NICE! I'm surprised that it would have any issues regarding build quality - I thought BMW sorted that issue out in the early 90s. I guess they might have introduced it instead... :scratch:


Audi A4 (tdi) does 230 fine on the autobahn according to my suppliers there.
Sisters TDI camry did 200kph and that car was like 20 years old.

Yeah, the TDIs don't have any trouble keeping up with city traffic - that is for sure. Mate of mine used to have an A6 TDI - bloody quick, and very very silent. The diesel V10 that is in the Tuareg is quite a beasty engine as well :yes:

[rok-the-boat]

You know, I'd bet an 883 starter makes more torque than the 883 motor. And with that reasoning, you could just press the starter button for instant thrust ...

Disclaimer - don't try it at home.

[SixPackBack]

That's something that people without R1s have.

Right?

:D

Edit: Actually, you might be surprised at how quickly Super Corsas in the rain teach one self-control.

Then again, you probably wouldn't be surprised.

I have a pair of Pilot Power 2CTs on order; they won't arrive soon enough.

:sweatdrop


Spooky shit..dude you must have ESP or LSD or summat! :shit:

[Big Dave]

Spooky shit..dude you must have ESP or LSD or summat! :shit:

ADD





....10