Blunt ones?Originally Posted by WINJA
C'mon lets ride....
Blunt ones?
has made a bo-bo in his nappies
Sorry mate, it doesn't work even that well.
"Ready to ride does not mean a full tank of gas. It may just mean 1 litre of gas and all the other fluids present (which is, I'm led to believe, how the more honest Euros do it)
That liquid shortfall looks pretty strange now huh!
Forum whore
maybe the japs use imperial kilograms?
has made a bo-bo in his nappies
I disagree, at least in part.
Light weight bikes handle better and have better pwr to weight (obviously) if everything else is equal.
After many many bikes ridden and raced, I much prefer a light weight bike to a porky one. My old XJR1300SP with almost 130bhp at the back wheel (after some mods), was able to keep many supposedly more sporty bikes at bay (I'd say rider skill but then you'd all dump on me for bragging). However, I still prefer less outright power and less weight.
I sold my 640 Supermoto only because the Mrs wouldn't sit on the back seat.
After many test rides (thanks Haldanes, Mt Eden M/C, AMPS), the only one we both could live with was the big supermoto and even then I've ordered tyhe 'comfort seat'.
In my book, weight is more important than HP, my old 640SM was tweaked but still only made 54bhp. However, as many will attest, it was a real weapon around the Coromandel, out to Raglan etc.
Top speed is not my thing, best average speed through faster corner speed pushes my buttons.
Forum whore
It is my understanding (but I have no evidence for it and cannot remember where I read it) that the "dry weights" are actually the shipping weights for the bikes - before crating up.
If so they would include no fluids at all (engine oil, coolant, gearbox, fork oil, brake fluid, engine coolant) also no battery, no toolkit,no number plate, basically missing all the bits that are put on when the dealer assembles the bike.
On road weight SHOULD be with a full tank of fuel, that was how the old British mags weighed them.
has made a bo-bo in his nappies
ha! ha! like the yank 'gallon' you mean?
you've heard the yanks skiting about how cheap their gas is by the gallon? Well at 3.8 litres (I think) to 4.5 for the imperial gallon, it's already got a head start.
has made a bo-bo in his nappies
The problem with that is that tank sizes differ. A Ducati Hailwood replica for example, only holds 8 litres while my KTM 640 with its big tank, held 18 litres. And how about the KTM Adventure with its 32 litre tank?!
I reckon ready to ride with a fixed amount of fuel in the tank: 1 litre or 5 litres, it makes no difference, is the way to go.
Forum whore
True. But by the same token, different bikes hold varying amounts of engine oil ( from just over a litre to maybe 6 litres). Ditto gearbox oil, coolant (air cooled = none!) and so on.
My expectation would be that ready to ride weight was weight as ready to hit the road.
Forum whore
Now you reminded me of something I read in a british bike mag, claiumed that some factory weights are just the sum of all the parts required. Not actually weighed as such, more measured.
has made a bo-bo in his nappies
yeah but you can't go anywhere really with less than the correct amount of engine oil, coolant, or fork oil etc.
As for HP, my preference when comparing bikes is RWHP (rear wheel horse power).
I prefer this because there are many ways to lose HP between the crank and the contact patch (real world). Ancillary equip rotating weight (alternator etc), chain weight and drag (race chain vs O'ring, vs X ring, vs 520, vs 530 vs belt drive, wheel rotating mass, caliper mass.
In the end, the amount of power and torque that gets to the road is more important than bragging rights at the crank.
The most powerful I ever saw at AMPS was an old GSXR1100 with a big turbo. Viscious power band but it did make almost 200BHP at the rear wheel. (I know the boys have tested a few bikes higher, drag bikes mainly)
In the riders seat
I think you'll find it's more like 24 litres
"If you can make black marks on a straight from the time you turn out of a corner until the braking point of the next turn, then you have enough power."
Forum whore
Whoopy doo.... doesn't matter what weight they tell me it is... that's not going to affect how the bike handles... it's still the weight it is. So long as the way they measure the CBR600/R6/GSXR600 is relatively close, that's good enough for me.
Sure we all prefer lighter bikes, but the actual figure itself is elementary.
has made a bo-bo in his nappies
The 'new' 900ss Hailwood Replica with round tube single sided swingarm that was sold over the internet doesn't have the fuel capacity that the old replica did.I think you'll find it's more like 24 litres
It actually holds 12.5 litres (I was working from faulty memory last night).
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click...9D235&set_id=4
has made a bo-bo in his nappies
if that's what you think, fine.
when i'm reading magazines and want to make a list of bikes to test ride before buying, i prefer the figures quoted to be realistic and produced using the same methodology.
if you're looking for a 600-750cc bike, the differences between the japanese and the nerw 675 Triumph, or the 750 Brutale might be quite big but mis-stated due to different test methods.
I'd rather not waste my time riding something that was never up to what I expected in the first place.
It all boils down to what you read magazines for: comparitive bike data and tests or bragging rights that don't translate into the real world.
After 34 years riding and racing on road and off road bikes, i would prefer a level playing field.
Forum whore
Even if you new to the gram what each bike weighed, that wouldn't affect either their handling, or the pleasure they delivered. If you haven't figured that out in 34 years you're in trouble
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks